Skip to content

research: score and sequence the next payment gateway integrations #93

Description

@teesofttech

Outcome

Turn the growing provider wishlist into a defensible roadmap instead of integrating gateways in issue-number order.

Evaluation criteria

  • Target countries, currencies, and local payment methods not already covered.
  • Merchant demand and onboarding availability.
  • API quality, versioning, sandbox fidelity, negative testing, webhook security, and refund support.
  • Pricing/commercial constraints and settlement model.
  • Maintenance risk, certification effort, and overlap with existing providers.
  • Fit with the current hosted-checkout IPaymentGateway contract.

Acceptance criteria

  • Every open provider issue is scored with the same weighted rubric.
  • Top candidates have official documentation and accessible sandbox accounts.
  • A recommended sequence identifies quick wins, strategic gaps, and deferred providers.
  • Required credentials/certification and test ownership are named.
  • Results are published in the docs capability/roadmap section.
  • Scores are reviewed at least quarterly.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    area: gatewaysPayment gateway integrations and provider behaviorepicLarge outcome split into multiple deliverable issuespriority: P1High priority; should be addressed nextresearchDiscovery, validation, or technical spike

    Projects

    No projects

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions