search

moov-io / imagecashletter

X9’s Specifications for ICL (Image Cash Letter) to provide Check 21 services. The HTTP server is available in a Docker image and the Go package is available.
https://moov-io.github.io/imagecashletter/
Apache License 2.0
60 stars 39 forks source link

Deposit tickets #321

Open atonks2 opened 1 year ago

atonks2 commented 1 year ago

This update introduces support for Credit records (type 61) inside Bundles. These records are frequently used to represent deposit tickets.

closes #112 and #317

atonks2 commented 1 year ago

Tests are failing because the linter thinks there are real credentials in one of the tests. I'll address that tomorrow.

adamdecaf commented 1 year ago

Tests are failing because the linter thinks there are real credentials in one of the tests. I'll address that tomorrow.

You can ignore them pretty easily. https://github.com/moov-io/achgateway/blob/master/.gitleaksignore

codecov-commenter commented 1 year ago

Codecov Report

Merging #321 (2ed8ba6) into master (6e978b8) will decrease coverage by 0.21%. Report is 6 commits behind head on master. The diff coverage is 68.05%.

:exclamation: Current head 2ed8ba6 differs from pull request most recent head 2b325a3. Consider uploading reports for the commit 2b325a3 to get more accurate results

:exclamation: Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #321 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 84.15% 83.94% -0.21% ========================================== Files 39 39 Lines 5415 5420 +5 ========================================== - Hits 4557 4550 -7 - Misses 576 587 +11 - Partials 282 283 +1 ```
IdoMeros commented 7 months ago

@adamdecaf @atonks2 - Any update regarding R61? @jgulledge19 is reporting that R61 did not appear in the X9 file generated (as of Dec 20). We're interested in using the function and are determining whether we should customize the solution to include the feature or await the resolution of this issue..

IdoMeros commented 5 months ago

@adamdecaf @atonks2 - Can you provide a status update?

atonks2 commented 5 months ago

@IdoMeros Sorry for the delay. Unfortunately I had to switch over to another project, but when I was working on this I believe I got stuck trying to figure out the best way to work with conflicting spec versions. I'll need to do some research to get the context back, but we may have to favor one spec over another which is something we've tried to avoid in the past.

IdoMeros commented 5 months ago

@atonks2 No apology is necessary at all. Do you mean Record 61 in a Wells Fargo X9 vs a Record 61 in other versions? Which version did you code the R61 for?

atonks2 commented 5 months ago

Do you mean Record 61 in a Wells Fargo X9 vs a Record 61 in other versions? Which version did you code the R61 for?

I'm struggling to recall the specifics, but I think it came down to a common problem of how some institutions use 61 vs 62, and whether the item is inside a bundle, or on its own.

IdoMeros commented 5 months ago

@atonks2 Interesting. I've never seen an R61 outside of the bundle. I'm not too familiar with an R62 record, so maybe it's more specific to it.

Attaching a screenshot showing the comparison between a R61 in a Wells Fargo X9 vs Non-Wells Fargo (practically every other bank which requires a R61) X9.

R61Screenshot