"Debit failed for (no description)"

[msherry]

https://dp.balancedpayments.com/#/marketplaces/MP17rGQI6yMEysofZfzYkpNJ/customers/CU40IVXOldo9FfPSupmGjtzh

[kyungmin]

@msherry This is an intended behavior. These debits don't have descriptions. Feel free to reopen if you have a specific suggestions.

[msherry]

@kyungmin Those transactions have failure reasons. Click on the first one: "477: This transaction was declined. Please contact the card processor for more information about the failure reason."

I see that there's a new field called "Internal description", which is indeed none. I don't know where that comes from or how it's populated, but that seems like a mistake, since immediately above it is a legit failure reason.

[kyungmin]

Ah, now I understand what you were confused about. Sounds like "for" is the confusing point.

"Internal description" is typically how the dashboard users identify transactions, and that's why we brought back the description as "Debit succeeded for Booking 123" (#1565 (comment)).

I think something like "Debit (Booking 123) succeeded" or "Debit (no description) failed" might be more clear.

[msherry]

Ahh yup, that's it. 'For' implies a reason to me.

I like "Debit (Booking 123) succeeded", but if there's no description, why include anything at all? "Debit failed" seems like it conveys the same amount of information in less space.

[kyungmin]

Yes, that would be a more elegant solution.

[kyungmin]

The problem with "Debit (Booking 123) succeeded" is that "succeeded" could get cut off in the table if the description is long, but we will go with this solution until we discover a better one.

[mjallday]

you've got the red denoting failure tho?

[kyungmin]

Right, that's why I think it's not a huge problem. All transactions with descriptions have simple statuses, like succeeded/pending/failed, which can be easily assumed from the colored dot.