[ic] Authorize.Net Missing Order Number

[C.B. Currier]

Mike Heins said:
> Quoting Russ Mann (tech@khouse.org):
>> > I think it may have to do with the order process. An order number is
>> > not created until the transaction is completed, at which time IC
>> > says "make it so" and assigns the order number. To pass it to the
>> > authnet gateway, one thinks that IC would have to assign the receipt
>> > number "before" the transaction is verified and successful....
>> >
>> > May mean just another sub to create, but what does it do, "hold" an
>> > order number waiting for a successful transaction, what if there is
>> > never success?
>> > Junk the number? Then you have missing numbers in your order query.
>> > Assign the number back to the order_number file, what if second
>> > shopper came and went already? Then you have a quandary...
>> >
>> > "if" this is the scenario, it could be fixed with some a coding....
>> >
>> > RS
>>
>>
>> Ok, that's understandable.  Alternative way to do this: Make a unique
>> number for each "attempted" order and log it in the database.  It will
>> not be the actual order number, but it is a field we could print out
>> on the email report and in the UI admin to correlate the CC charge
>> with the actual order.
>>
>> IC Gurus, does this sound like a reasonable solution?
>
> That is what happens now with the order ID. I don't know why
> that reference number is not passed in, I am guessing it is
> just a bug.
>
> Probably the line which says:
>
> 		x_Trans_ID
	=> $actual->{order_id},
>
> Needs to say:
>
> 		x_Trans_ID
	=> $actual->{order_id} || $order_id,
>

That works mike but gives you a ten digit string which looks like a
timestamp id not the final order ID the system allocates to the approved
order.Maybe it would be better to assign the timestamp id as the actual order ID.
I have done that in other systems, that way there will be no potential of
redundancy.  So how could you assign this number to be the final Number?

C.B. Currier