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.

Activity

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

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