Roku Developer Program

Join our online forum to talk to Roku developers and fellow channel creators. Ask questions, share tips with the community, and find helpful resources.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
EnTerr
Roku Guru

Bug in test user's Transaction View?

There seems to be some kind of bug in the dev.portal -> Manage Test Users -> View Transactions (for particular user).

Notice how same transaction ID is shown per app, regardless of the Date and Product?


Notice on the 2nd app, it shows the same transaction# for both Product purchase and Installs, which is unexplainable. How could it be that one and the same transaction would happen on different days and contain information on 2 or 3 distinct sales? Of different types even (in-store product vs download)

My working hypothesis is that this report is buggy, in which it repeats the same txn# wrongly. The alternative explanation - that there is design flaw in the backend - is worse. Question is, which is the case?

PS. Feeding the 1st ID (b7367ceb-6019-48b8-aa05-a46f00ffa6a0) to https://apipub.roku.com/listen/transact ... ansaction/ shows me
<result xmlns="http://api.roku.com/transaction" xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<errorCode xmlns="" i:nil="true"/>
<errorDetails xmlns="" i:nil="true"/>
<errorMessage xmlns=""/>
<status xmlns="">Success</status>
<amount>0.0000</amount>
<cancelled>false</cancelled>
<channelId>59050</channelId>
<channelName>Tangrams - beta</channelName>
<couponCode i:nil="true"/>
<currency>usd</currency>
<expirationDate i:nil="true"/>
<originalPurchaseDate>2015-04-03T22:30:47</originalPurchaseDate>
<partnerReferenceId i:nil="true"/>
<productId/>
<productName/>
<purchaseDate>2015-04-03T22:30:47</purchaseDate>
<quantity>1</quantity>
<rokuCustomerId> (censored) </rokuCustomerId>
<tax>0.0000</tax>
<total>0.0000</total>
<transactionId>b7367ceb-6019-48b8-aa05-a46f00ffa6a0</transactionId>
</result>

where the 2nd ID (ec5d87da-cc06-46dc-8b75-a63a0008db40) is:
<result xmlns="http://api.roku.com/transaction" xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<errorCode xmlns="" i:nil="true"/>
<errorDetails xmlns="" i:nil="true"/>
<errorMessage xmlns=""/>
<status xmlns="">Success</status>
<amount>0.0000</amount>
<cancelled>false</cancelled>
<channelId>75561</channelId>
<channelName> (censored) </channelName>
<couponCode i:nil="true"/>
<currency>usd</currency>
<expirationDate i:nil="true"/>
<originalPurchaseDate>2016-07-05T07:32:14</originalPurchaseDate>
<partnerReferenceId i:nil="true"/>
<productId>raga-no-ads</productId>
<productName>Raga - Remove Video Ads</productName>
<purchaseDate>2016-07-05T07:32:14</purchaseDate>
<quantity>1</quantity>
<rokuCustomerId> (censored) </rokuCustomerId>
<tax>0.0000</tax>
<total>0.0000</total>
<transactionId>ec5d87da-cc06-46dc-8b75-a63a0008db40</transactionId>
</result>


To save some staring at XML, let me highlight the weird:
  • in the 1st case, returned is the txn body of a download, from the first date (4/3/15)

  • in the 2nd case, returned is the txn body for in-app purchase, from the last date (7/5/16)

There seem to be no rhyme nor reason to this?
0 Kudos
3 REPLIES 3
EnTerr
Roku Guru

Re: Bug in test user's Transaction View?

One more observation - i used "Void Transactions" button on ec5d87da-cc06-46dc-8b75-a63a0008db40 and the product purchase line 7/5/16 is gone now - but the product-downloads circa 11/20/15 and 11/23/15 still show the same ec5d87da-cc06-46dc-8b75-a63a0008db40 in the "Transaction ID" column. `transaction-service.svc/validate-transaction` still shows the product purchase as content (which is fine guess, even if voided).

Ordering the product again appended a different transaction ID. So... the "channel download" transactions got lost forever somehow?!

Which tilts the suspicion in direction of the DB - i.e. that it's not the report/view to blame. Is something rotten in the state of Denmark?
0 Kudos
EnTerr
Roku Guru

Re: Bug in test user's Transaction View?

Anyone?
0 Kudos
EnTerr
Roku Guru

Re: Bug in test user's Transaction View?

Bueller? 
0 Kudos