How do people deal with the situation of bounced checks when getting Yodlee transactions through the Aggregation API?
Our app only retrieves posted transactions and it has led to an issue.
Most banks seem to balance the bounced check situation by providing posted transactions for both the initial check disbursement (negative amount) and for the bounced check (positive amount). Bank of America, however only posts the positive amount transaction - (the one the increases the balance of the consumer's bank account) - the original transaction never gets past the pending stage. and since the original transaction (the check) is never posted it results in an incorrect increase in balance on the consumer side.
Any thoughts?
If you are customer of Yodlee, then you can reach out to Yodlee's support team and raise your issue with details like BankName, SiteId,memSiteAccId and cobrandId. Yodlee's data team will look into it and would be able to help you out.
Related
Here is blockchain link:
https://blockchain.info/address/14f4WdcxkRhP2N5JbCWe3q7QcNtDiX82ba?filter=1
Here you can clearly see that that total received bitcoin was about, but he spent more than 200 i guess...
Can someone explain how is that even possible?
Whoever who made these transactions had other sources of funds than just the account you queried. Thus he was able to form transactions that delivered more funds than that one account received.
If you total amount delivered by all of the transactions that drew from that account, they do total more than 200 Bitcoins. But those transactions drew from many accounts, not just this one.
For example, if you look closely at transaction ce99101a40bcf2bceab57ac43ff881260a6961c546b9d52e0737ed6acd39a43a you can see that while the transaction delivered over 25 Bitcoins, it had numerous input accounts. Only 0.1528 Bitcoins came from 14f4WdcxkRhP2N5JbCWe3q7QcNtDiX82ba.
Note that this is perfectly ordinary. Some wallets behave this way automatically, constantly generating additional accounts to hold funds and managing those sources as a unit, forming transactions that draw from several of them and returning unspent funds to yet another new account.
I'm attempting to get transactions on an account previously added (more than a few days ago).
The account was added to a test account on our sandbox but the account is real.
I use executeUserSearchRequest to initiate the search, with the parameters shown in the image below (screenshot from PhpStorm, while debugging).
The result can also be seen on the screenshot.
Please note that I've also attempted fetching transactions for another account on a different financial institution (that was added to the customer account on Yodlee again several weeks ago). It also returns no results.
When both accounts were added, they were added using addItemForContentService1 with a parameter to refresh right after adding (startRefreshItemOnAddition=true).
What can be the reason for this 'no transactions' reply? (although we know that there were transactions on those accounts).
Thanks
As per the screenshot it seems like you are filtering the transactions based on the containerType= 'stocks', this will return transactions for all the investment accounts for that user.
Also, you are passing the itemAccountId.identifier which is for a specific account.
It would be great if you check followings:
The actual account aggregated is an investment account?
The itemAccountId is correct for that account?
Else, you can just remove the itemAccountId.identifier param as it is non-mandatory field and try. You should get some transactions in response.
In our application, there are occasionally cases where a bank account is disconnected using removeItem and subsequently reconnected using addItemForContentService1 from the Yodlee SOAP aggregation API. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that, until relatively recently (1-2 months ago?), the transaction IDs for bank transactions that had already been retrieved from a prior connection would be identical when the same bank account was reconnected. However, now it appears that, when a bank account is disconnected and then reconnected in this way, all of the bank transactions are now assigned new transaction IDs, thus breaking any client logic that attempts to match transactions from previous connections to the same bank account. This can be a serious problem since, for example, it can produce many duplicate transactions for accounts that have already had bank reconciliations performed.
My questions are whether there now exists a reliable mechanism to identify the same bank transactions when disconnecting and reconnecting to the same bank account using removeItem and addItemForContentService1 and, if so, what is it?
When you call removeItem the account is deleted and also all the data related to that account is deleted. Now when you call addItemForContentService1 a new itemId is created for that account and data is freshly added to the data base considering the account as new. Since there is no mapping to the old data , so you will not get the same transaction IDs for those transactions.
Hence removeItem should only be called if you wish to delete the account and it's data from Yodlee platform.
Customers have started to find that the transaction description field provided by Yodlee is changing, without the original / older transaction being removed and a new one being created in it's place.
Our expectation up to now is that if any changes take place, the old transaction is deleted and a new one is created, with a new internal transaction_id used by Yodlee. This is the system that is used for moving pending transactions to posted.
Is it now standard practice that merchant descriptions change frequently within the same transaction ID, or is this being done in error? Should we open a service request for the problem to be resolved?
Yodlee scrapes transactions from the Bank websites in each refresh for a specific duration- 30days, so if there are few transactions which got scraped and filed into Yodlee DB in previous refresh and now Bank has updated the description of those transaction while keeping rest of the information same. And say those are coming in current refresh also, then Yodlee will apply its logic and will update the description without changing anything else. But the chances when Bank Website does this is very rare.
If you are facing this kind of issue repeatedly/frequently then we suggest you to open a service request, with all the relevant information.
Note: The above scenario is in the case of Posted Transactions only.
With Authorize.Net, I see no way to use the Transaction Details (TD) API in order to find the remaining transaction refund balance, such as someone who buys two products at once on a given transaction, gets refunded on one product, and then the next day comes back and wants to get refunded on the second product. Unless I store those prices somewhere, I have no way to know how much to refund. And this gets more complicated when exchange rates are used, where the price fluctuates a little. The only way to refund properly on the second product is to get the remaining refund balance and refund that balance.
What's the trick to get the remaining balance that I can still refund out of the transaction?
Unfortunately there is no way to get that information through their API. The merchant account provider does not provide this information nor does Authnet keep track of this information themselves. Basically you need to keep track of open balances, available refunds, etc on your end.