Deprecation cleanup

[ct-clearhaus]

Remove parameters and values that have been deprecated long enough.

[ct-clearhaus]

@brorbw, please feel free to merge if you're happy 🙇‍♂️

[tjconcept]

I would have appreciated a longer notice period 🙂

Do you have some lower minimum for the notice period on breaking changes to the API (extraordinary circumstances aside)?

[ct-clearhaus]

I would have appreciated a longer notice period 🙂

Anything in particular?

Regarding the separate items:

• recurring boolean: The replacement series[] was announced in the 2021Q3 partner bulletin along with Introduce credential, initiator and series[] #111 (merged 2021-01-15) which explicitly deprecated it. I think +2 years of response time is pretty decent.
• 3DSv1: Announced in the 2022Q3 and 2023Q1 partner bulletins along with Deprecate 3DSv1 #154 from October 2022. We've confirmed that there's basically no use, so this shouldn't pose a problem.

[tjconcept]

Anything in particular?

The recurring flag.

I think +2 years of response time is pretty decent.

Does "deprecated" equals "will be removed"? In that case, do you have a timeline (at least a minimum) for when "deprecated" features are removed?

[ct-clearhaus]

Does "deprecated" equals "will be removed"? In that case, do you have a timeline (at least a minimum) for when "deprecated" features are removed?

It means that it'll go, eventually, yes. Not in general, as it depends on the situation.
We definitely should inform well in advance and allow you to prepare and adopt changes in a stable and non-urgent manner so rollouts can be of high quality! Please reach out to your partner manager if you have any concerns regarding lack of information 🙇‍♂️

[mt-clearhaus]

I added some suggestions but I'm also ok with the current state of the PR 👍

An extra suggestion:

In website/content/gateway/api_reference/transaction_status/merchant_blocked_by_cardholder_status.md:

Perhaps change "recurring transactions" to "transactions in series" or "subsequent-in-series transactions"?

[ct-clearhaus]

I forgot about #169 (review) 🤦‍♂️ I'll fix it in another PR.

[ct-clearhaus]

I forgot about #169 (review) 🤦‍♂️ I'll fix it in another PR.

Well, after going down a historic 🐰🕳️ (#71 among others) I've ended up concluding that I'll leave it as is. My reasoning: The first sentence still holds; it's for MITs, there's no adjustment for non-series MITs. Thus, we could state that it includes all subsequent-in-series transactions, but I guess the point is to explain stuff as simple and "exemplified" as possible, and for that, recurring — being the canonical type of series — is the obvious example to use.

@mt-clearhaus, please do shout enough if you disagree enough 😄

[mt-clearhaus]

I don't disagree at all 🙂 👍