feat(payment): provider service

[fPolic]

What

• introduce payment provider service
• refactor module methods that communicate with providers

Note

• please ignore TODOs related to amounts - this depends on the feat: Add BigNumber implementation #6253

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: e97954b

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 2 packages

Name	Type
@medusajs/types	Patch
@medusajs/utils	Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
medusa-dashboard	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Feb 12, 2024 4:38pm

3 Ignored Deployments

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
api-reference	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)			Feb 12, 2024 4:38pm
docs-ui	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)	Visit Preview		Feb 12, 2024 4:38pm
medusa-docs	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)	Visit Preview		Feb 12, 2024 4:38pm

[olivermrbl]

Be careful about this PR when merging. It seems to have been based off another already merged branch.

[fPolic]

Be careful about this PR when merging. It seems to have been based off another already merged branch.

Should be resolved now

[olivermrbl]

As discussed previously, I think we should go with making all methods that interface with 3rd party providers singular and handle the bulk operations (and the errors that may occur) separately in the API or workflows. This should mitigate the risk of unexpected behavior or an inconsistent state of payments between systems. That way, we can handle an issue with one payment operation in isolation from the others instead of having to deal with scenarios like reconciling payments because 4 captures succeeded in Stripe but none in Medusa.

To illustrate, this would look something like this:

Payment Module

async capturePayment(paymentId) {
  const payment = await this.retrievePayment(paymentId)
  const provider = await this.retrieveProvider(payment.provider_id)

  await provider.capturePayment(payment)

  return await paymentService.update({ captured_at: new Date() })	
}

API

// POST /admin/payment-collection/:id/capture
const route = (req, res) => {
  const workflow = capturePaymentsWorkflow(req.scope)

  const paymentCollection = await paymentModule.retrieve(req.query.id)

  const result = await workflow.run({ input: paymentCollection }, { throwOnError: false })

  // handle errors … e.g. one out of 5 captures might have succeeded
}

Or alternatively, just do five requests to a single API endpoint

// POST /admin/payments/:id/capture
const route = (req, res) => {
  const workflow = capturePaymentWorkflow(req.scope)

  const payment = await paymentModule.retrievePayment(req.query.id)

  const result = workflow.run({ input: p })

  // handle errors
}

Aside from making it less error-prone, it would also simply the Payment Module business logic quite a bit.

cc @adrien2p @carlos-r-l-rodrigues

[fPolic]

@olivermrbl I agree! Converting this temporarily to a draft while I work on a refactor.

[olivermrbl]

LGTM, think this is good to merge now. I imagine things will change a bit when we integrate Stripe and the BigNumber class, so let's push forward 💪

[olivermrbl]

@adrien2p or @carlos-r-l-rodrigues – do any of you want to go through this before we merge?