Different naming convention on date field in status update notification

Question

The date field in `latest_receipt_info` is inconsitent.

For example, the two date fields: `expires_date` and `original_purchase_date`, the following's value with same format but different naming convention for the key:

`expires_date` => `original_purchase_date_ms`.

`expires_date_formatted` => `original_purchase_date`

`expires_date_formatted_pst` => `original_purchase_date_pst`

This is really confusing.

%{"auto_renew_product_id" => "io.example.pro",
  "auto_renew_status" => "true", "environment" => "Sandbox",
  "latest_receipt" => "RECEIPT",
  "latest_receipt_info" => %{"bid" => "io.example", "bvrs" => "41",
    "expires_date" => "1502767605000",
    "expires_date_formatted" => "2017-08-15 03:26:45 Etc/GMT",
    "expires_date_formatted_pst" => "2017-08-14 20:26:45 America/Los_Angeles",
    "item_id" => "1243267094",
    "original_purchase_date" => "2017-06-16 06:27:05 Etc/GMT",
    "original_purchase_date_ms" => "1497594425000",
    "original_purchase_date_pst" => "2017-06-15 23:27:05 America/Los_Angeles",
    "original_transaction_id" => "1000000307712301",
    "product_id" => "io.example.pro",
    "purchase_date" => "2017-08-15 03:21:45 Etc/GMT",
    "purchase_date_ms" => "1502767305000",
    "purchase_date_pst" => "2017-08-14 20:21:45 America/Los_Angeles",
    "quantity" => "1", "transaction_id" => "1000000324426003",
    "unique_identifier" => "becd78c1c419a7d75c128e5306762da1ac9c9cba",
    "unique_vendor_identifier" => "F8EACBA7-4637-4A49-929D-B30013F35D5F",
    "web_order_line_item_id" => "1000000035380472"},
  "notification_type" => "INTERACTIVE_RENEWAL",
  "password" => "PASSWORD"}

In-App Purchase

1.7k

Posted by

junj

Reply

Add a Comment

Answer 1

The two documented fields, purchase_date and original_purchase_date are in "RFC 3339" format as documented here:

https://developer.apple.com/library/content/releasenotes/General/ValidateAppStoreReceipt/Chapters/ReceiptFields.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40010573-CH106-SW12

The other fields (except as noted below) are not documented and formated as you noted.

The surprise is the "expires_date_formatted" which should be labelled "expires_date"

and the "expires_date" which should be labelled "expires_date_ms".

Please report this bug.

Posted by

PBK

Add a Comment

Answer 2

Seeing the same exact issue here. The status update notification format seems to differ wildly from the receipt data received by the app itself during the subscription/payment flow. It's super surprising and frustrating that the receipt format differs so greatly.

Posted by

markquezada

Add a Comment

Answer 3

This is true. I would actully expect that the fields like 'latest_receipt' and 'latest_receipt_info' would be exactly the same as the receipt data in the app. In the app, for example, latest_receipt_info is an array of purcheses, but in the status update notification format it is an object. The status update notification format is kind of the iOS6-style receipt format with its "bid" and "bvrs" fields.

Posted by

y.lukyanov

Add a Comment

Answer 4

Same issue here.

It's extremely frustrating that these 2 entities are different. And since this documentation https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/releasenotes/General/ValidateAppStoreReceipt/Chapters/ReceiptFields.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40010573-CH106-SW12 is now archived. I would expect the server-to-server notification to use this format: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/appstorereceipts/responsebody/latest_receipt_info aswel.

This is extremely frustrating, since you are recommending people to implement server-to-server notifications. https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2019/302/

How are we supposed to do this when there is no consistency??

Posted by

pieter_pan

Add a Comment

Different naming convention on date field in status update notification

Replies