Re: [w3c/payment-request] Proposal to make the amount field in PaymentShippingOption optional (#901)

Thank you Marcos for your response

> Changing this might break backwards compatibility, so we'd have to work out a reasonable upgrade strategy if we do this.
Would you please explain more about your backwards compatibility concern? Making this optional will not break merchant's using Payment Request APIs. It might break payment apps which support shipping delegation, but since delegation is a new feature, I am not aware of any apps which has implemented or are working on shipping delegation.

> I'm also worried that excluding the amount on the shipping option might be confusing for users: if the merchant excludes the amount, but then the total changes based on the selected shipping option after the user hits Pay, then users will get confused (leading to loss of trust in both the merchant and the payment sheetChanging this might break backwards compatibility, so we'd have to work out a reasonable upgrade strategy if we do this.
I think it should be merchant's call to see if the field is needed or not, e.g. when the shipping option label already includes the price, explicitly passing amount is redundant. An example use case here is when the payment app's pay.js library (e.g. Gpay) is using Payment Request API on behalf of merchant's website and includes the price in shipping option label. Our current recommendation to them is to pass arbitrary values as amount that you know you are not gonna use. However bypassing a required field like this suggests that maybe the field should not be required to begin with.




-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/payment-request/issues/901#issuecomment-598800288