githubEdit

Testing CoP integration

In the UAT environment, you can simulate different CoP responses by using specific substring keywords in the accountName field and any valid bsb and accountNo values.

circle-info

The pattern matching on the accountName field is substring-based and case-insensitive, e.g. using "Test Copimatch", "John copimatch Smith", or "COPIMATCH" will all trigger the same scenario.

Here is a current list of the testing keywords and the most common response codesarrow-up-right. Please note this list can be changed over time.

Account Name Keyword
Response Code
Simulated Account Type

copimatch

MATCH

Individual

copijmatch

MATCH

Individual (joint account)

copcmatch

MATCH

Company

copiclosematch

CLOSE_MATCH

Individual

copijclosematch

CLOSE_MATCH

Individual (joint account)

copcclosematch

CLOSE_MATCH

Company

copinotmatch

NOT_MATCH

Individual

copcnotmatch

NOT_MATCH

Company

copclosed

ACCOUNT_CLOSED

-

copnotfound

ACCOUNT_NOT_FOUND

-

coperror

COP_PLATFORM_ERROR

-

circle-info

You can start with testing CoP requests in the API Playgroundarrow-up-right. Log in with your UAT credentials and use the confirmationOfPayee mutation.

Integration Examples

CoP as a standalone investigation tool

CoP can be used independently from your payment flows as an account investigation tool. For example, you may want to verify account holder details during onboarding, reconciliation, or dispute resolution, without initiating a payment. A typical investigation flow looks like this:

  1. Collect the account details you wish to verify: BSB, account number, and the expected account holder name.

  2. Call confirmationOfPayee with those details.

  3. Inspect the code in the response.

  4. If MATCH then the account holder name is confirmed. Record the result for your records.

  5. If CLOSE_MATCH then the name partially matches. Review the message for details and decide whether further investigation is needed.

  6. If NOT_MATCH then the name does not match the account. This may warrant further due diligence.

  7. If ACCOUNT_CLOSED or ACCOUNT_NOT_FOUND then the account is no longer active or does not exist. Flag accordingly.

  8. If COP_PLATFORM_ERROR then the check could not be completed. The account may have opted out of CoP. Retry later or use alternative verification methods.

circle-info

Each CoP request is logged and available in your FlashConnectarrow-up-right request history, making it easy to maintain an audit trail of your verification checks.

CoP as a part of your payment integration flow

circle-exclamation

A typical future integration flow could look like this:

  1. Before submitting a payment or withdrawal, call confirmationOfPayee with the recipient's account details.

  2. Inspect the code in the response.

  3. If MATCH then proceed with the payment.

  4. If CLOSE_MATCH then display a warning to your user and let them decide whether to proceed.

  5. If NOT_MATCH then alert the user and recommend they verify the account details.

  6. If ACCOUNT_CLOSED or ACCOUNT_NOT_FOUND then block the payment and ask the user to provide correct details.

  7. If COP_PLATFORM_ERROR then optionally proceed, as the account may have opted out of CoP.

circle-info

CoP is advisory. The response does not block payments automatically. It is your responsibility to act on the result codes appropriately for your use case.

Error Handling

If your account does not have CoP enabled, the API will return:

Standard rate limitingarrow-up-right applies to CoP requests. Additionally, CoP has its own usage limits. If you exceed them, you will receive the COP_LIMIT_EXCEEDED code.

circle-info

When the response codearrow-up-right is COP_PLATFORM_ERROR, it may indicate that the account holder has opted out of CoP verification. The general recommendation is to proceed with the payment.

Last updated

Was this helpful?