Skip to content

feat(issuing): add scheduled_revocation_date and update-card status - #245

Open
armando-rodriguez-cko wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
feat/INT-1700-issuing-card-scheduled-revocation
Open

armando-rodriguez-cko wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
feat/INT-1700-issuing-card-scheduled-revocation

Conversation

@armando-rodriguez-cko

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary
Adds card scheduled_revocation_date/status per the 2026-09-17 swagger delta (INT-1700), and reflects encrypted_cvv's removal from update-card-response (added by INT-1695, removed by this same delta). This SDK has no typed issuing response classes, so the response-side change is test coverage, not a new type.

Changes

  • checkout_sdk/issuing/cards.py — CardRequest and UpdateCardRequest gain scheduled_revocation_date; UpdateCardRequest gains status (new CardStatusUpdate enum)
  • tests/issuing/issuing_serialization_test.py — coverage for the new fields
  • tests/issuing/card_update_headers_wire_test.py, cards_issuing_integration_test.py — updated/removed tests that asserted encrypted_cvv is still returned (no longer true against the live API)

API Reference

  • POST /issuing/cards
  • PATCH /issuing/cards/{cardId}

Breaking changes
update-card-response no longer includes encrypted_cvv (API-forced, minor per SDK, same precedent as INT-1695's activation_date rename).

README
No README changes needed.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Swagger 2026-09-17: add-card-request and update-card-request gain
scheduled_revocation_date (replaces deprecated revocation_date); update-card-request
gains status to reactivate an inactive/suspended card. update-card-response no longer
includes encrypted_cvv on the live API; this SDK has no typed issuing response
classes, so tests are updated to reflect the current response shape.
@armando-rodriguez-cko
armando-rodriguez-cko requested a review from a team September 24, 2026 16:11
@agent-wall-e

agent-wall-e Bot commented Sep 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🟢 Risk Classification: LOW

Approval route: AI Auto-Approval
Rollback controls: Automated Instant Rollback + feature flags

Classification reasons

  • no_low_class_matched
  • prod_source_modified
  • 2.2.6_logical_extension:The change only adds new optional fields to existing request dataclasses and a small enum, reuses existing endpoints (POST/PATCH /issuing/cards), introduces no new persisted types, auth changes, external integrations, or background processes, and is a natural extension of the existing issuing card abstraction.

Operational gates

  • ✅ jira_ticket (INT-1700)
  • ✅ independent_review

Files analysed: 4


wall-e 2026.06.19-02 · policy 6b4ce2b3b45a…

@agent-wall-e

agent-wall-e Bot commented Sep 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
🔬 Debug — why this classification?

Each reason code emitted by the classifier, its source clause in the AI in SDLC Control Framework, and what it means.

Reason code Kind Clause Meaning
no_low_class_matched informational §2.2 (fall-through) None of the deterministic Low classes (§2.2.3, §2.2.4, §2.2.7, docs-only) applied; classifier fell through to LLM evaluation.
prod_source_modified informational §2.1 M7 (informational) At least one file is non-doc, non-test, non-IaC — i.e. application source code was modified.
2.2.6_logical_extension — The change only adds new optional fields to existing request dataclasses and a small enum, reuses existing endpoints (POST/PATCH /issuing/cards), introduces no new persisted types, auth changes, external integrations, or background processes, and is a natural extension of the existing issuing card abstraction. classifying §2.2.6 Sonnet 4.6 evaluator promoted minor → low: the change reuses existing code paths and does not cross a trust boundary.

Kinds:

  • classifying — this rule contributed to the chosen tier.
  • informational — context only; did not by itself decide the tier.

See issue #3 for the proposal to formalise this map as Appendix A of the standards doc.

wall-e 2026.06.19-02 · debug

@agent-wall-e agent-wall-e Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

✅ Auto-approved — this PR meets all Low-risk criteria.

All checks passed, no unresolved comments, and the change classification is:

  • no_low_class_matched
  • prod_source_modified
  • 2.2.6_logical_extension:The change only adds new optional fields to existing request classes and a small enum, reuses the same existing endpoints (POST/PATCH /issuing/cards), introduces no new persisted data, no auth changes, no external integrations, and is a natural extension of the existing issuing card abstractions.

wall-e 2026.06.19-02 · policy 6b4ce2b3b45a…

david-ruiz-cko
david-ruiz-cko previously approved these changes Sep 25, 2026
…ual cards

Swagger 2026-09-23 split update-card-response into a virtual/physical
discriminator; the virtual variant adds is_single_use (specifies whether the
card is set to expire after a single use). Physical cards never send it. This
SDK has no typed issuing response classes, so this is a doc + test update.
@agent-wall-e

agent-wall-e Bot commented Sep 25, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🟢 Risk Classification: LOW

Approval route: AI Auto-Approval
Rollback controls: Automated Instant Rollback + feature flags

Classification reasons

  • no_low_class_matched
  • prod_source_modified
  • 2.2.6_logical_extension:The change only adds new optional fields to existing request classes and a small enum, updates doc comments, and removes a no-longer-returned field from test assertions—all within existing endpoints and abstractions, with no new integrations, persisted data, auth changes, or background processes.

Operational gates

  • ✅ jira_ticket (INT-1700)
  • ✅ independent_review

Files analysed: 5


wall-e 2026.06.19-02 · policy 6b4ce2b3b45a…

@agent-wall-e

agent-wall-e Bot commented Sep 25, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
🔬 Debug — why this classification?

Each reason code emitted by the classifier, its source clause in the AI in SDLC Control Framework, and what it means.

Reason code Kind Clause Meaning
no_low_class_matched informational §2.2 (fall-through) None of the deterministic Low classes (§2.2.3, §2.2.4, §2.2.7, docs-only) applied; classifier fell through to LLM evaluation.
prod_source_modified informational §2.1 M7 (informational) At least one file is non-doc, non-test, non-IaC — i.e. application source code was modified.
2.2.6_logical_extension — The change only adds new optional fields to existing request classes and a small enum, updates doc comments, and removes a no-longer-returned field from test assertions—all within existing endpoints and abstractions, with no new integrations, persisted data, auth changes, or background processes. classifying §2.2.6 Sonnet 4.6 evaluator promoted minor → low: the change reuses existing code paths and does not cross a trust boundary.

Kinds:

  • classifying — this rule contributed to the chosen tier.
  • informational — context only; did not by itself decide the tier.

See issue #3 for the proposal to formalise this map as Appendix A of the standards doc.

wall-e 2026.06.19-02 · debug

@sonarqubecloud

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@agent-wall-e agent-wall-e Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

✅ Auto-approved — this PR meets all Low-risk criteria.

All checks passed, no unresolved comments, and the change classification is:

  • no_low_class_matched
  • prod_source_modified
  • 2.2.6_logical_extension:The change only adds new optional fields to existing request dataclasses and a new enum value, reuses existing endpoints (POST/PATCH /issuing/cards), introduces no new persisted data, no auth changes, no new external integrations, and is a natural extension of the existing issuing card abstraction.

wall-e 2026.06.19-02 · policy 6b4ce2b3b45a…

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants