Use the C2 country code for China worldwide for comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) method, bank card, and cross-border transactions.
Found on this page: https://developer.paypal.com/docs/api/orders/v1
I'm struggling to make sense of what it actually means!
I know what ISO codes are - what I am trying to figure out is why the 'C2' (China) code might be used for ALL bank card/cross-border/CUP transactions worldwide, regardless of the ACTUAL countries involved - or if that's not what it means at all!
Related
I've been using the Android billing client for a while now and always display the prices using getPriceAmountInMicros() from the SkuDetails object returned from the billing client.
Often we get complains from some of the customers that the price we display is not the same price they're paying. I've always assumed this is due to local taxes and that the Google play Store doesn't return the prices with local taxes included.
However, going to the documentation of getPriceAmountInMicros() things start to get a bit fuzzy. In particular this section:
This value represents the localized, rounded price for a particular currency.
What is a "localized price"? Is this including taxes? I cannot find any explicit place where it says this includes taxes or that it doesn't. By contrast the documentation for getPrice() explicitly states that the price does not include taxes.
Looking into a completely different resource, yet connected to a sku, one can see the same method - getPriceAmountInMicros(). In this method, it's explicitly stated that the price does not include taxes. It would seem odd to me that they would choose to name the method in a SkyDetails object the same, but have different semantics. Nevertheless, I want to be sure and would highly appreciate your help!
Thanks for pointing this out.
Because the QPS of computing taxes during skuDetails queries would be high, our servers defer tax computation to the purchase flow. So unless you need getPriceAmountMicros() for, say, refunds; you should simply use getPrice().
From reading the information about NewOrderSingle FIX-Protocol message on FIXimate I can't figure out how to properly use the Side, tag 54=.
For the below orders, what are the correct sides?
Buy CAD, sell USD: Symbol is USD/CAD, Side needs to be 1 or 2?
Buy EUR, sell USD: Symbol is EUR/USD, Side needs to be 1 or 2?
You're asking whether the instrument is quoted as base/terms currency or the inverse.
That depends on your counterparty and the FIX-Protocol specification that you and they specify together.
Usually it's baseCCY/termsCCY and the answer to your question is 2 and 1:the 2 to buy termsCCY, the CAD in USDCAD,andthe 1 to buy baseCCY, the EUR of EURUSD.
So you see you can use either case as shown by your CADUSD example. That's because a client, for example, may want to buy 1.000.000 USD of EURUSD (in other words a nice round figure amount quoted in USD) but with the price quoted in the conventional EURUSD and not as the unconventional USDEUR.
In that case it would be 2 to buy USD (and sell EUR).
From memory I think the baseCCY, or dealt currency, FIX-Protocol tag is 12= or 15=, and that removes any ambiguity about the size and side and currency quoting convention.
No doubt you get what I am talking about tho.
When creating certain objects on Shippo, there's this object_purpose attribute that allows you to select either QUOTE or PURCHASE. I can see that PURCHASE is for labels that are meant to be bought and used in the end, but when should I use QUOTE only?
It's fine to use PURCHASE for all your objects. Just remember, that a complete from / to address is required.
You should use QUOTE when you don't intend to actually buy a label - such as getting rates to show to a buyer or just doing a shipping estimate. The benefit of using QUOTE is that rates can be retrieved using less information (such as only passing the zip codes), since the the full street address is not required.
Currently in my comp., there are some changes going on regarding project documentation. There is a LOT of time and effort spent on discussing functional specs vs. requirements doc. However, I don't think anyone here understands the reason why you would use one over the other. Therefore, I don't understand the difference myself.
Can someone shed some light on this matter please? If you have links to articles, blog posts, etc. That would be helpful too.
A Requirements document should specify the requirements from the perspective of the end user.
User requirements document - Wikipedia
A Functional spec is a level lower and starts to define how different parts of the system should function at the System Engineering level:
Functional specification - Wikipedia
Requirements : “what” the application should do [from user's perspective view]
Functional specification: “how” the application function
Technical specification: “how” the function implemented
Requirement:
You must be in Edinburgh by 2pm tomorrow.
Specification:
Travel by car to the airport ... then take a connecting flight to .... then take the tram to the city centre ... then walk to ....
In general it's 'What's the outcome?' versus 'How are we going to do it?'.
Business Requirement:
Implement a computerized system that calculating employees wages with required deductions and additions and pay the amount the employee is actually owed.
Functional Requirements
How many employees in the company and their details
Are they part-time, or full-time or hourly
What is the pay date
What is the deductions like TAX, PF, Community Contributions etc
Say your company is willing to sponsor the fees for taking programming certification examination. What is the best aproach to implement this?
I would say if the programmer passes the exam at the first try, it shoud be fully sponsored.
If the programmer doesn't pass the first try, the 2nd exam should be 50% sponsored. If failed 3rd time, the programmer should pay in full (including for the first 2 exams).
I find that it is difficult to balance between voluntary taking up the exam (for confident programmers) and mandatory / policy set by the management.
Anyone like to share your experience / suggestion on this?
For optional certification:
At our company, you must receive a pass to get any sort of compensation. Anything below, and you get nada. If you fail the first two times and pass the 3rd time, you still pay for the first two times...but the company will pay for the third.
For required certification:
Company pays no matter what.
Sponsor the first time regardless, that includes the necessary training.
Failure or success of the exam is of secondary importance comapred to the training, many companies often require staff to be regularly trained too, so its not much of a cost in the first place.
Taking the exam is also up to the staff member, let them take it if they want, but don't worry if they don't.
Fully sponsor training and test fees for the first attempt of the test and give a small bonus (~ cost of test fees) upon successfully passing a test or attaining a certification.
That way if the person doesn't pass on the first attempt, there's still an incentive to pass, even when they're putting up their own money.