The documentation mentions the following: Verify your receipt first with the production URL; then verify with the sandbox URL if you receive a 21007 status code. This approach ensures you don’t have to switch between URLs while your app is in testing, in review by App Review, or live in the App Store. This way, you can use one server environment to handle both Sandbox and Production environments. It is necessary to pass App Review. However, I'm not manually hitting these URLs - I'm using Apple's libraries. Specifically, the environment is used in SignedDataVerifier and AppStoreServerAPIClient. (I can't link to these because, for some reason, the domain apple.github.io is not allowed. The documentation for these is only found there. You can find it quickly by searching these terms and the domain.) Here is how SignedDataVerifier is being used: const verifier = new SignedDataVerifier( appleRootCertificates, APPLE_ENABLE_ONLINE_CHECKS, APPLE_ENVIRONMENT, APPLE_BUNDLE_ID, APPLE_APP_ID ) const verifiedNotification: ResponseBodyV2DecodedPayload = await verifier.verifyAndDecodeNotification(signedPayload) if (!verifiedNotification) { // Failure return } Here is how AppStoreServerAPIClient is being used: const appStoreServerAPIClient = new AppStoreServerAPIClient( SIGNING_KEY, APPLE_IAP_KEY_ID, APPLE_IAP_ISSUER_ID, APPLE_BUNDLE_ID, APPLE_ENVIRONMENT ) const statusResponse: StatusResponse = await appStoreServerAPIClient.getAllSubscriptionStatuses(originalTransactionId, [Status.ACTIVE]) In the source code for SignedDataVerifier.verifyAndDecodeNotification, I can see that it throws a VerificationException(VerificationStatus.INVALID_ENVIRONMENT) error . So for SignedDataVerifier is it as simple as wrapping my code in a try/catch and checking that the error's status code is 21007? I'm unsure about this because if you scroll to the bottom of the linked source code file, you can see the enumeration VerificationStatus, but it's unclear if this member has a value of 21007. The source code for AppStoreServerAPIClient only says that it throws an APIException if a response could not be processed, so I'm not too sure about how to handle this one.

We have a user from Asia whose subscription failed to be detected by our app. On 26.4. They also tried revoking the yearly subscription and activating a monthly. Payment ok and the device reported that the subscription is active. Our code relies on Transaction.currentEntitlements in StoreKit, which seems to be broken, at least for this user. None of these worked: Installing iOS 26.4.1 Reinstalling our app Logging out and in from iCloud. Hard device reset Full iOS reinstall. User finally gave up and got a refund. I am reporting here in case other apps experienced similar problems. This discussion mentions that a regression in 26.4 might have contributed to the issue which is supposed to be fixed in 26.4.1. ( https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/820562?answerId=883682022#883682022 ) The issue may have persisted or left the entitlements corrupt for this particular user. Hoping that the issue is resolved so we do not have more problems in the future.

Hi, I'm reaching out to report a recurring issue with in-app purchases on iOS that seems to be related to Apple’s transaction handling — not to third-party libraries. In my Flutter application, I use both StoreKit2 and StoreKit1 (for comparison) via different packages, including the official in_app_purchase package. However, in both cases, I’m experiencing unexpected reuse of transactionId and appTransactionId values, even when initiating fresh purchases with unique appAccountToken values. Problem Summary: Purchase Stream Returns Old Purchases When calling buyNonConsumable() with a new product, the purchase stream still returns data for a previously purchased product, despite clearing all Sandbox transactions and using a new applicationUserName for each attempt. Transaction IDs Reused Across Distinct Purchases Even when generating a new UUID for appAccountToken on each purchase, the returned appTransactionId and transactionId are reused — this breaks our server-side logic, which expects these fields to uniquely identify purchases and users. Example Logs: // First purchase { "appAccountToken": "2d5a0880-f68e-44a7-a414-f51204e63904", "appTransactionId": "704464472748013865", "transactionId": "2000000928154716" } // Second purchase (different user context) { "appAccountToken": "2d5a0880-f68e-44a7-a414-f51204e63904", "appTransactionId": "704464472748013865", "transactionId": "2000000928429780" } Even when using a different productId, the appTransactionId stays the same. When using StoreKit1, the productId updates properly, but the transactionId still matches the previous one. This behavior also affects App Store Server Notifications (V2): we have observed notifications tied to appAccountTokens from completely different user accounts (based on internal logs), sometimes delayed by days or weeks. I’ve prepared a reproducible example using the official Flutter in_app_purchase sample with minimal changes — you can find it here: Github gist The code is almost identical to the package example. I only added UUID generation for applicationUserName in _getToken(). In the actual app (not in this example), I retrieve the token from an API. Additional Observations from the Community: We’ve also found similar issues reported in other frameworks and languages. For instance, a developer using react-native-iap observed that App Store Server Notifications in TestFlight were tied to previously deleted users, even after signing up with a new user account and generating a new appAccountToken. Details here: User A deleted → User B signs up → receives upgrade event with User A’s token Notification uses appAccountToken from old account, not the new one This strengthens the suspicion that the issue may be related to how Apple associates transactions with Apple IDs in test environments. Questions: Is it expected for transactionId or appTransactionId to persist across purchases within the same Apple ID, even for different user contexts (e.g., separate logins in the same app)? Is there any official recommendation for avoiding this kind of data reuse in Sandbox or TestFlight environments? Should I expect appAccountToken in server notifications to always match the latest value provided during the purchase? Thank you in advance for your assistance. I would appreciate any clarification or advice regarding this issue, as it impacts production logic that relies on these identifiers being unique and consistent.

I've recently published an app, and while developing it, I could always get consistent entitlements from Transaction.currentEntitlements. But now I see some inconsistent behaviour for a subscribed device in the AppStore version. It looks like sometimes the entitlements do not emit value for the subscriptions. It usually happens on the first couple tries when the device goes offline, or on the first couple tries when the device goes online. But it also happens randomly at other times as well. Can there be a problem with Transaction.currentEntitlements when the connectivity was just changed? Of course my implementation may also be broken. I will give you the details of my implementation below. I have a SubscriptionManager that is observable (irrelevant parts of the entity is omitted): final class SubscriptionManager: NSObject, ObservableObject { private let productIds = ["yearly", "monthly"] private(set) var purchasedProductIDs = Set<String>() var hasUnlockedPro: Bool { return !self.purchasedProductIDs.isEmpty } @MainActor func updatePurchasedProducts() async { var purchasedProductIDs = Set<String>() for await result in Transaction.currentEntitlements { guard case .verified(let transaction) = result else { continue } if transaction.revocationDate == nil { purchasedProductIDs.insert(transaction.productID) } else { purchasedProductIDs.remove(transaction.productID) } } // only update if changed to avoid unnecessary published triggers if purchasedProductIDs != self.purchasedProductIDs { self.purchasedProductIDs = purchasedProductIDs } } } And I call the updatePurchasedProducts() when the app first launches in AppDelegate, before returning true on didFinishLaunchingWithOptions as: Task(priority: .high) { await DependencyContainer.shared.subscriptionManager.updatePurchasedProducts() } You may be wondering maybe the request is not finished yet and I fail to refresh my UI, but it is not the case. Because later on, every time I do something related to a subscribed content, I check the hasUnlockedPro computed property of the subscription manager, which still returns false, meaning the purchasedProductIDs is empty. You may also be curious about the dependency container approach, but I ensured by testing multiple times that there is only one instance of the SubscriptionManager at all times in the app. Which makes me think maybe there is something wrong with Transaction.currentEntitlements I would appreciate any help regarding this problem, or would like to know if anyone else experienced similar problems.

Hello! The localization isn't working when using SubscriptionStoreView. The app hasn't been published yet. The subscription has been created and localization strings have been added. Status - ready to submit. Testing environment: Sandbox When calling SubscriptionStoreView, the debug console shows this error: GenerativeModelsAvailability.Parameters: Initialized with invalid language code: ru-RU. Expected to receive two-letter ISO 639 code. e.g. 'zh' or 'en'. Falling back to: ru Despite this, the subscription interface appears in English when Russian is expected. I don't use any locale setting for ru-RU anywhere in my code. The test device's region is set to Russia, and the language is Russian. Any help would be appreciated.

FB: https://feedbackassistant.apple.com/feedback/22556883 We're seeing a small number of production users where both Transaction.currentEntitlements and Transaction.all return zero transactions for a valid, active, non-refunded non-consumable IAP. This makes it impossible to restore the purchase via any StoreKit 2 API. Environment: Xcode 26.4 (Build 17E192) iOS 26.4.1 Direct call to SK2 Transactions.all & Flutter in_app_purchase package v3.2.3 (uses SK2 on iOS 15+) Non-consumable IAP (one-time purchase) What we observe: AppStore.sync() triggers but the purchase stream returns 0 transactions Transaction.all returns empty Transaction.currentEntitlements also returns empty User is confirmed on the correct Apple ID Issue reproduces on both iPhone and Mac for the same Apple ID Issue appears to have started recently for users who previously had no problems Debug log from affected production user: [2026-04-20T08:50:10.744115Z] init: iapAvailable=true [2026-04-20T08:50:10.744566Z] init: isPremium=false [2026-04-20T08:50:10.744567Z] init: triggering silent restorePurchases [2026-04-20T08:50:45.974566Z] restore: started [2026-04-20T08:50:45.986848Z] restore: sk2Transactions count=0 [2026-04-20T08:50:45.993004Z] restore: sk2Direct isVerified=false active=null [2026-04-20T08:50:45.993011Z] restore: sk2Direct inconclusive — falling back to standard restore [2026-04-20T08:51:16.000851Z] restore: timed out after 30s — fallback isPremium=false [2026-04-20T08:51:16.000910Z] restore: completed — succeeded=false foundPurchase=false Unable to reproduce in sandbox — Transaction.all works correctly there. Appears specific to production for a small subset of users. Has anyone else seen this?

We offer a 3-day free trial, and our paywall clearly states that users will be charged after the trial ends. However, some users request refunds after the charge - even after fully using our app for days or even weeks. In some cases, refunds are approved despite the users having consumed our AI processing services for up to a month. Since our app relies on backend AI processing, each user session incurs a real cost. To prevent losses, we utilize RevenueCat’s CONSUMPTION_REQUEST system and have set our refundPreference to: "2. You prefer that Apple declines the refund". Until recently, Apple typically respected this preference, and 90% of refund requests were declined as intended. However, starting about a week ago, we observed a sudden reversal: Apple is now approving around 90% of refund requests, despite our refund preference. As a result, we are operating at a loss and have had to halt both our marketing campaigns and our 3-day free trial. We’re trying to understand whether this shift is due to a change in Apple’s refund policy, or if we need to handle CONSUMPTION_REQUEST differently on our end. Has anyone else experienced similar changes? Any insights would be greatly appreciated.

Both the legacy StoreKit API and the new StoreKit 2 API return the incorrect storefront countryCode. My actual Apple ID region is Germany, and my Sandbox test user is set to France, yet the SDK consistently returns USA. Expected Results: The returned storefront countryCode should reflect the correct region - sandbox user region if signed in and real user region if not signed in with sandbox). Actual Results: Returned country code is USA with both SKPaymentQueue.default().storefront?.countryCode and await Storefront.current?.countryCode. Signing out/in, device reboot and even reset do not help, I'm stuck with USA storefront.

If an app on the App Store still uses StoreKit 1 (a.k.a. the Original StoreKit) to handle In-App Purchases, would IAPs work for users who download such app on iOS 26.2? Would the app allow the users to purchase an IAP via StoreKit 1 or would it be impossible to buy the IAP on iOS 26? The iOS Documentation says that SKPaymentQueue (which is a part of StoreKit 1) is "Deprecated" and "No longer supported.", with the support being for iOS 3.0–18.0. Does this mean that apps using StoreKit 1 won't be able to make IAP purchases when running on iOS 26?

Hi everyone, I'm building an iOS app using Capacitor 6 with Swift Package Manager (SPM). I have a custom native plugin (AppleIAPPlugin) for StoreKit 2 In-App Purchases that lives in the App target (not as an SPM package). Despite compiling successfully, the JavaScript bridge throws: "AppleIAP" plugin is not implemented on ios Setup AppleIAPPlugin.swift: swift import Foundation import Capacitor import StoreKit @objc(AppleIAPPlugin) public class AppleIAPPlugin: CAPPlugin, CAPBridgedPlugin { public let identifier = "AppleIAPPlugin" public let jsName = "AppleIAP" public let pluginMethods: [CAPPluginMethod] = [ CAPPluginMethod(name: "getProducts", returnType: CAPPluginReturnPromise), CAPPluginMethod(name: "purchase", returnType: CAPPluginReturnPromise), CAPPluginMethod(name: "restorePurchases", returnType: CAPPluginReturnPromise), CAPPluginMethod(name: "getCurrentEntitlements", returnType: CAPPluginReturnPromise), CAPPluginMethod(name: "openManageSubscriptions", returnType: CAPPluginReturnPromise), ] @objc func getProducts(_ call: CAPPluginCall) { /* StoreKit 2 implementation */ } @objc func purchase(_ call: CAPPluginCall) { /* ... */ } // etc. } AppleIAPPlugin.m: objc #import <Foundation/Foundation.h> #import <Capacitor/Capacitor.h> CAP_PLUGIN(AppleIAPPlugin, "AppleIAP", CAP_PLUGIN_METHOD(getProducts, CAPPluginReturnPromise); CAP_PLUGIN_METHOD(purchase, CAPPluginReturnPromise); CAP_PLUGIN_METHOD(restorePurchases, CAPPluginReturnPromise); CAP_PLUGIN_METHOD(getCurrentEntitlements, CAPPluginReturnPromise); CAP_PLUGIN_METHOD(openManageSubscriptions, CAPPluginReturnPromise); ) MyBridgeViewController.swift (custom bridge to register the plugin): swift import UIKit import Capacitor class MyBridgeViewController: CAPBridgeViewController { override open func capacitorDidLoad() { bridge?.registerPluginType(AppleIAPPlugin.self) } } Main.storyboard points to MyBridgeViewController (module: App) instead of CAPBridgeViewController. TypeScript side: typescript import { registerPlugin } from "@capacitor/core"; export const AppleIAP = registerPlugin("AppleIAP"); What I've verified Both .swift and .m files are in the Xcode project's Compile Sources build phase nm on the compiled binary confirms OBJC_CLASS_$_AppleIAPPlugin symbol exists The build succeeds with zero errors Other SPM-based Capacitor plugins (Share, Media, NativeAudio) work fine — they have pluginMethods and jsName symbols in the binary; my custom plugin does NOT A bridging header (App-Bridging-Header.h) is configured with #import <Capacitor/Capacitor.h> What I've tried (all failed) .m file with CAP_PLUGIN macro only (no CAPBridgedPlugin in Swift) Added CAPBridgedPlugin protocol conformance to Swift class Created MyBridgeViewController subclass with registerPluginType() in capacitorDidLoad() Removed/added override public func load() method Added #import <Foundation/Foundation.h> to .m file Various bridging header configurations Multiple clean builds and derived data wipes Environment Xcode 16 Capacitor 6 (via SPM, binary xcframework) iOS 17+ deployment target Physical device testing (not simulator) Question How should a custom plugin in the App target be registered with Capacitor 6 when using SPM? The SPM-based plugins from node_modules get auto-discovered, but my custom plugin in the App target does not. Is there a step I'm missing to make registerPluginType() work, or should I structure my custom plugin as a local SPM package instead? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

I’m experiencing an issue with subscriptions that behave differently between Xcode builds and TestFlight. Subscriptions work correctly when running the app directly from Xcode in a sandbox environment, but they do not work as expected when testing the same build through TestFlight. Has anyone experienced a similar issue with subscriptions working in Xcode but failing in TestFlight? Any guidance on what to check or debug would be appreciated. Additional details: iOS version: [ IOS 26] StoreKit version: [ StoreKit 2] TestFlight: When attempting to load the subscription products, the app returns “Product not found”. In some cases, it also shows the error “The subscription is unavailable in the current storefront”. This happens consistently in TestFlight, even though the same products load and work correctly when running the app from Xcode in the sandbox environment. Thanks

Hello, I am investigating a case where two different transaction IDs appear to refer to the same purchase, and I would like clarification on whether this behavior is expected. Additional context StoreKit version: StoreKit 1 (SKPaymentTransaction) Environment: Production Product type: Auto-renewable subscription Transaction sources The values are obtained from the following APIs: transaction_id from SKPaymentTransaction https://developer.apple.com/documentation/storekit/skpaymentqueue receipt_data from the App Store receipt https://developer.apple.com/documentation/foundation/bundle/appstorereceipturl Observed behavior After an In-App Purchase completes, the app receives: a transaction_id from SKPaymentTransaction the corresponding receipt_data for the purchase When inspecting the receipt, the transaction_id inside latest_receipt_info differs from the transaction_id received directly from the purchase transaction. For clarity: A = transaction_id received from the purchase flow (SKPaymentTransaction) A' = transaction_id found in receipt_data.latest_receipt_info The two values are different, but they differ only by 1. Additional observation The original_transaction_id for A and A' is identical, which suggests that both transaction IDs belong to the same subscription purchase chain. Pattern observation on the ID difference We have observed that the difference between A and A' is consistently exactly 1 (i.e., A' = A + 1) across multiple transactions, not just a single case. This appears to be a reproducible pattern rather than a coincidence. This observation raises an additional question (Question 6 below). API verification When calling: GET /inApps/v1/transactions/{transactionId} Both A and A' return what appears to be the same purchase record. The response data is effectively identical except for the transactionId field. However, when calling: GET /inApps/v2/history/{transactionId} A does not appear in the transaction history only A' appears in the history response Questions If A does not appear in transaction history, where does this transaction ID originate from? Why does Get Transaction Info (/inApps/v1/transactions/{transactionId}) return a valid response for A even though it is not present in the transaction history? Why do A and A' both resolve to what appears to be the same purchase? In this situation, which transaction ID should be treated as the canonical transaction ID for server-side validation? Is this difference related to how StoreKit 1 (SKPaymentTransaction) and the App Store Server API represent transactions? Is the consistent off-by-one difference between the transaction_id from SKPaymentTransaction and the one recorded in latest_receipt_info an intentional behavior of StoreKit 1's internal transaction ID assignment? Specifically, we are wondering whether StoreKit 1 applies some form of internal offset when delivering the transaction ID to the client, while the App Store server records a different (adjacent) ID in the receipt. If so, is this documented anywhere? Note We are currently in the process of migrating to StoreKit 2, but this behavior was observed while investigating our existing StoreKit 1 implementation. Any clarification would help us better understand the correct transaction model during the migration.

Hello, We are facing an issue with In-App Purchases (subscriptions) in two iOS apps built with React Native + react-native-iap. Issue Some users receive the error: E_CONNECTION_CLOSED during the purchase flow. However: The payment is successfully deducted via the App Store. The subscription appears in the user's Apple ID subscription list. But on our side: The app does not receive the StoreKit transaction callback No receipt or transaction ID is delivered Our backend cannot validate the purchase. Restore Purchases When affected users try Restore Purchases, StoreKit returns: No purchases found even though the subscription is visible in their Apple ID. Most affected users are from India, and many payments are made via UPI through App Store billing. Has anyone experienced a case where: the user is charged the subscription exists in Apple ID but StoreKit never returns the transaction or receipt? Any suggestions on how to recover these transactions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

最近我们有个应用要对接App 内购买项目，有什么好的资料或者demo提供一下吗？

Whether using Storefront.current?.countryCode or SKPaymentQueue.default().storefront?.countryCode, both are returning "USA" only. (It used to return the correct country code before the update.) In the sandbox environment, the country code is returned correctly, but in the TestFlight environment, it always returns "USA". There's no mention of this behavior in the beta release notes, so I'm posting it here for visibility.

Hi, I am building a new app in the App Store - the app is not live yet. I have setup an annual subscription product in AppStore Connect. Our problem is that we are unable to retrieve the product from our app - we've made sure that there are no missing metadata (e.g. price, availability). Has anyone encountered before? Appreciate any help provided. Thanks

Over the past two days, we've observed an unusual spike in requests from some iOS users to our server endpoint responsible for verifying App Store purchase receipts. After sampling and analyzing the data, we found that the cause is related to the behavior of StoreKit2.Transaction.updates. Specifically, when listening for transaction updates, the system returns a large number of historical transactions — some dating back as far as one year. These callbacks are interpreted as "new" transactions, which in turn trigger repeated calls to Apple’s receipt verification servers, leading to an abnormal surge in traffic and putting pressure on our backend services. This behavior is ongoing and is something we've never encountered in our previous experience. It appears to be outside of expected behavior, and we suspect it may be due to some kind of abnormality or unintended usage scenario. We would appreciate guidance on the following: Is this a known behavior or issue with StoreKit2? Are there specific device states or conditions that could cause the system to emit historical transactions in bulk? Are there any recommended practices for mitigating or filtering such transaction floods? We have attached logs for reference. Any help identifying the root cause or suggestions for investigation would be greatly appreciated. 2025-07-24 12:39:58.594 +0400 listenForTransactions :{ "appTransactionId" : "704289572311513293", "environment" : "Production", "inAppOwnershipType" : "PURCHASED", "originalPurchaseDate" : 1713445834000, "originalTransactionId" : "430001791317037", "purchaseDate" : 1713445834000, "quantity" : 1, "signedDate" : 1753346396278, "storefrontId" : "143481", } 2025-07-24 12:39:58.594 +0400 listenForTransactions :{ "appTransactionId" : "704289572311513293", "deviceVerificationNonce" : "c4f79de2-a027-4b34-b777-6851f83f7e64", "environment" : "Production", "inAppOwnershipType" : "PURCHASED", "originalPurchaseDate" : 1713445849000, "originalTransactionId" : "430001791317270", "purchaseDate" : 1713445849000, "quantity" : 1, "signedDate" : 1753346396278, "storefrontId" : "143481", "transactionId" : "430001791317270", } 2025-07-24 12:39:58.594 +0400 listenForTransactions :{ "appTransactionId" : "704289572311513293", "deviceVerificationNonce" : "02f305d7-0b2d-4d55-b427-192e61b99024", "environment" : "Production", "inAppOwnershipType" : "PURCHASED", "originalPurchaseDate" : 1713511999000, "originalTransactionId" : "430001792218708", "purchaseDate" : 1713511999000, "quantity" : 1, "signedDate" : 1753346396278, "storefrontId" : "143481", "transactionId" : "430001792218708", } 2025-07-24 12:39:58.598 +0400 [INFO] [MKPaymentService:23]: [XLPay] listenForTransactions :{ "appTransactionId" : "704289572311513293", "deviceVerificationNonce" : "5ca85907-1ab6-4160-828e-8ab6d3574d6f", "environment" : "Production", "inAppOwnershipType" : "PURCHASED", "originalPurchaseDate" : 1713512034000, "originalTransactionId" : "430001792219189", "purchaseDate" : 1713512034000, "quantity" : 1, "signedDate" : 1753346396278, "storefrontId" : "143481", "transactionId" : "430001792219189", } 2025-07-24 12:39:58.599 +0400 listenForTransactions :{ "appTransactionId" : "704289572311513293", "deviceVerificationNonce" : "04869b50-b181-4b69-b4ff-025175e9cf14", "environment" : "Production", "inAppOwnershipType" : "PURCHASED", "originalPurchaseDate" : 1713512049000, "originalTransactionId" : "430001792219440", "purchaseDate" : 1713512049000, "quantity" : 1, "signedDate" : 1753346396278, "storefrontId" : "143481", "transactionId" : "430001792219440", }

Dear Apple Technical Support Team, We have encountered a potential issue related to transaction handling while using StoreKit v2, and would greatly appreciate your assistance in confirming the behavior or providing any relevant guidance. Issue Description: When calling Transaction.unfinished and listening to Transaction.updates on the client side, we noticed that some transactions—despite having already been processed and successfully completed with finish()—are being returned again upon the next app launch, which results in duplicate receipt uploads. Current Handling Flow: 1. Upon app launch: • Iterate over Transaction.unfinished to retrieve unfinished transactions; • Simultaneously listen for transaction changes via Transaction.updates (e.g., renewals, refunds); 2. For each verified transaction, we immediately call await transaction.finish(); 3. We then construct a transaction model, store it locally, and report it to our backend for receipt verification; 4. After the server successfully verifies the receipt, the client deletes the corresponding local record; 5. On every app launch, the client checks for any locally stored receipts that haven’t been uploaded, and re-uploads them if necessary. Key Code Snippets: private static func verifyReceipt(receiptResult: VerificationResult) -> Transaction? { switch receiptResult { case .unverified(_, _): return nil case .verified(let signedType): return signedType } } public static func handleUnfinishedTransactions(payConfig: YCStoreKitPayConfig, complete: ((YCStoreKitReceiptModel?) -> Void)?) { Task.detached { for await unfinishedResult in Transaction.unfinished { let transaction = YCStoreKitV2Manager.verifyReceipt(receiptResult: unfinishedResult) if let transaction { await transaction.finish() if transaction.revocationDate == nil { let receipt = YCStoreKitV2Manager.createStoreKitReceiptModel( transation: transaction, jwsString: unfinishedResult.jwsRepresentation, payConfig: payConfig, isRenew: false ) complete?(receipt) } } } } } private func observeTransactionUpdates() -> Task<Void, Never> { return Task { for await updateResult in Transaction.updates { let transaction = YCStoreKitV2Manager.verifyReceipt(receiptResult: updateResult) if let transaction { await transaction.finish() if transaction.revocationDate == nil { let receipt = YCStoreKitV2Manager.createStoreKitReceiptModel( transation: transaction, jwsString: updateResult.jwsRepresentation, payConfig: self.payConfig, isRenew: false ) self.callProgressChanged(.receiptPrepared, receiptModel: receipt, errorType: .none, error: nil) } } } } } Our Questions: 1. Is it possible for Transaction.unfinished or Transaction.updates to return transactions that have already been finished? Specifically, if a transaction was successfully finished in a previous app launch, could it still be returned again during the next launch? 2. Are there any flaws in our current handling process? Our current sequence is: finish() → construct model → local save → report to server → delete after verification. Could this order lead to timing issues where StoreKit considers a transaction unfinished? 3. If we need your assistance in investigating specific user transaction records or logs, what key information should we provide? We greatly appreciate your support and look forward to your response to help us further optimize our transaction processing logic.

In Getting started with In-App Purchase using StoreKit views and the corresponding sample project, Store simultaneously enumerates Transaction.unfinished and Transaction.updates. Since, "if your app has unfinished transactions, the updates listener receives them once, immediately after the app launches," it appears that Transaction.unfinished would also receive the same unfinished transactions causing handle(updatedTransaction:) to be called for twice for each transaction, causing consumables to be double-counted. Is this a bug in the sample? Is there more information on concurrent execution of unfinished and updates?

The majority of our sandbox calls to verifyReceipt end in an ETIMEDOUT error. This is making it very difficult to verify our purchase flow for our pending release. We have not yet migrated to StoreKit 2 and still rely on this API endpoint. The Apple API status page reports no issues. Is anyone else encountering this?