Closed nitrag closed 8 years ago
This is to expose getOriginalJson()
? getSignature()
already exists.
Having a method to just return getOriginalJson()
instead of a method that returns both Signature and Original Json aka getReceipt()
might be better.
What do you think? Is it necessary to combine them into getReceipt()
?
For Google validation, receipt is an object
{ data: "stringified purchase data", signature: "yyyy" }.
It was necessary to expose originalJson
because the data has to be in the exact order it was received for valid decoding. So I killed two birds with one proxy method. Sure it might be cleaner to separate it but that's just one more thing to merge properly on the JS side.
Ah. Okay. Understood. 👍
@nitrag I'm going to have to cherry-pick this put it in another PR. Reason being that there's a need to branch out the ti.inappbilling for support prior to TiSDK 6 and for TiSDK 6 moving forward.
Hope that is okay for you?
No problem, I'll keep an eye out for the change when I upgrade to 6.0.
On Sep 9, 2016 2:45 AM, "Ashraf" notifications@github.com wrote:
@nitrag https://github.com/nitrag I'm going to have to cherry-pick this put it in another PR. Reason being that there's a need to branch out the ti.inappbilling for support prior to TiSDK 6 and for TiSDK 6 moving forward.
Hope that is okay for you?
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/appcelerator-archive/ti.inappbilling/pull/23#issuecomment-245833256, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAMBkoJdlIIKdeAem3YPdiB8LvSGj8rYks5qoQCigaJpZM4J4pqG .
I've updated this PR here: https://github.com/appcelerator-archive/ti.inappbilling/pull/24
Will be closing this.
Validating your receipt externally is a PITA currently, this adds a helper function that returns exactly what you need.
Tested with NPM:
in-app-purchase