Update parsing logic for transaction details to support longer GVC and new separator#185
Open
gregorybrzeski wants to merge 2 commits intocentrapay:masterfrom
Open
Update parsing logic for transaction details to support longer GVC and new separator#185gregorybrzeski wants to merge 2 commits intocentrapay:masterfrom
gregorybrzeski wants to merge 2 commits intocentrapay:masterfrom
Conversation
Author
|
Hi! I appreciate your time reviewing this PR. If there are any additional changes needed, I'm happy to make them. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This update modifies the handling of transaction details parsing to accommodate the following use case:
Additionally, I wanted to raise the idea of offering more flexibility by allowing users to configure these parameters (GVC length and separator) via environment variables. Happy to provide a PR to handle that.
Please let me know your thoughts on this approach, and if you'd be open to merging this change.
Looking forward to your feedback.
Example of my use case MT940 transaction message: