Is there an existing issue for this?
Use case
It is known that by setting applicationUserName in PurchaseParams, it will eventually be passed to the BillingFlowParams.setObfuscatedAccountId() method. In reality, BillingFlowParams has another method setObfuscatedProfileId() to set developer information, but currently it cannot be passed. It is hoped that the official team can support this setting.
Proposal
final BillingResultWrapper billingResultWrapper =
await billingClientManager.runWithClient(
(BillingClient client) => client.launchBillingFlow(
product: purchaseParam.productDetails.id,
offerToken: offerToken,
accountId: purchaseParam.applicationUserName,
oldProduct: changeSubscriptionParam?.oldPurchaseDetails.productID,
purchaseToken: changeSubscriptionParam
?.oldPurchaseDetails.verificationData.serverVerificationData,
prorationMode: changeSubscriptionParam?.prorationMode),
);
return billingResultWrapper.responseCode == BillingResponse.ok;
}
Is there an existing issue for this?
Use case
It is known that by setting applicationUserName in PurchaseParams, it will eventually be passed to the BillingFlowParams.setObfuscatedAccountId() method. In reality, BillingFlowParams has another method setObfuscatedProfileId() to set developer information, but currently it cannot be passed. It is hoped that the official team can support this setting.
Proposal
final BillingResultWrapper billingResultWrapper =
await billingClientManager.runWithClient(
(BillingClient client) => client.launchBillingFlow(
product: purchaseParam.productDetails.id,
offerToken: offerToken,
accountId: purchaseParam.applicationUserName,
oldProduct: changeSubscriptionParam?.oldPurchaseDetails.productID,
purchaseToken: changeSubscriptionParam
?.oldPurchaseDetails.verificationData.serverVerificationData,
prorationMode: changeSubscriptionParam?.prorationMode),
);
return billingResultWrapper.responseCode == BillingResponse.ok;
}