When I try to save a plan with the same setup charge code as another plan, I get a validation error saying I can't do that. Based on what I've read at http://support.cheddargetter.com/faqs/pricing-plans/setup-charge, shouldn't I be able to specify the same setup charge code (and different setup charge amounts) for multiple plans?
Can't save plan with same setup charge code as another plan
Discussions are closed to public comments.
If you need help with Cheddar please
start a new discussion.
Keyboard shortcuts
Generic
| ? | Show this help |
|---|---|
| ESC | Blurs the current field |
Comment Form
| r | Focus the comment reply box |
|---|---|
| ^ + ↩ | Submit the comment |
You can use Command ⌘ instead of Control ^ on Mac
#1 Posted by Marc Guyer Support staff on 06 Oct, 2009 09:54 PM
Oops -- Our tests bypassed the GUI validation in this case. This has been fixed but wont be released for a day or two. I'll post here when we roll it out.
#2 Posted by david.ells on 12 Oct, 2009 07:05 PM
Any word on this bug fix? We're getting closer by the day to using our system live and need to go ahead and update these fields.
#3 Posted by Marc Guyer Support staff on 12 Oct, 2009 09:09 PM
The release I alluded to became somewhat unintentionally larger since this exchange. We're looking at a few more days.
#4 Posted by david.ells on 19 Oct, 2009 02:35 PM
We're ready to go live, but need to update these fields. Can you do so through the back end on our behalf? For our product, we need each of the subscription plans to have a setup charge (SCORM_CLOUD_FIRST_MONTH) equal to the recurring cost of the plan. Let me know if this is possible. Thanks!
#5 Posted by Marc Guyer Support staff on 22 Oct, 2009 07:31 PM
David -- This release went out this afternoon. It includes the fix for non-unique charge codes, error handling improvements and error simulation. There's also a new report under the "Reports tab called "Errors" which exposes errors to you for troubleshooting purposes.
Change Log
Error Handling
Error Simulation
Marc Guyer closed this discussion on 22 Oct, 2009 07:31 PM.
david.ells re-opened this discussion on 22 Oct, 2009 09:36 PM
#6 Posted by david.ells on 22 Oct, 2009 09:36 PM
Sweet, this all looks great. Thanks.
#7 Posted by Marc Guyer Support staff on 22 Oct, 2009 09:56 PM
Nice. We're especially jazzed about the error simulation. We expected to be able to use a gateway's error simulation but that was decidedly lacking. It's best that CG has it's own anyway.
Marc Guyer closed this discussion on 22 Oct, 2009 09:56 PM.