| • Pablo-WMDE | |
| Nov 22 2017, 2:09 PM |
| F11583622: image.png | |
| Dec 7 2017, 12:24 PM |
| F11583760: image.png | |
| Dec 7 2017, 12:24 PM |
AT61 1904 3002 3457 3201 is indicated as valid, missing BIC is not reported to user.
Acceptance Criteria derived from @Jan_Dittrich's comment:
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resolved | None | T177929 Integrate new layout | |||
| Resolved | None | T177930 donate - Integrate new layout | |||
| Resolved | None | T181151 Donate with foreign IBAN w/o adding BIC |
We do not need the BIC for carrying out direct debit transactions. Thus, the form field should not be considered as mandatory by the validation (in either the client-side and the server-side validation).
We talked about how to represent this in the UI. Current suggestion: change label "BIC" to "BIC (optional)" and change the color of the bank account fields to the "field is filled" color, but don't set a checkmark. Any alternative suggestions/objections, @Jan_Dittrich ?
Ping @Jan_Dittrich. See https://test-spenden-2.wikimedia.de/ to see the behavior mentioned.
Is it about this state?
What is the BIC for if it is not needed, actually? Could we just ditch the field?
people are just getting used to use their IBAN and BIC. "IBAN only" is a pretty new thing (since 02/17). We do not want people get confused because they think the BIC is missing while thinking it must be there.
OK
I think the label BIC (Optional), as suggested by @gabriel-wmde is correct. Checkmark if BIC is given. If no BIC given: no checkmark, no error, no "did you forget your BIC" message.