Namely, a FIToFIPmtSts field is expected, which only exists in a Pacs002 message. However, all the route handlers in the tms submit a transaction to server.handleResponse() which in 3/4 routes, is not a Pacs002 message.
I am unsure about the impact of this change though, but I think this should be an error
In the different routes for handling requests in the tms, there is a call to:
Which calls
.encode()
on FRMSMessage from a protobuf message.The
transaction
expected byserver.handleResponse()
is of typeTransaction
, as noted in the .proto file here. This transaction is represented as:Namely, a
FIToFIPmtSts
field is expected, which only exists in aPacs002
message. However, all the route handlers in the tms submit a transaction toserver.handleResponse()
which in 3/4 routes, is not aPacs002
message.I am unsure about the impact of this change though, but I think this should be an error
Acceptance Criteria