I've been stuck with this rejection. Trial button 'greyed out' or non responsive. What they are seeing is my subscriptions not loading into the pay wall. We think its because the subscriptions haven't been reviewed and approved in order for them to populate the pay wall (activating the pay wall so it isn't 'greyed out'. Has anyone had and solved this issue?

I read the documentation and it told I had to prepare the product on App Store connect and once it is at the state "Ready to submit" I could access it on a phone where I am connected with an Icloud account in the developper list of the apple development account. This is what I've done but when I try to fetch in my flutter code the product with the id I set in App Store connect it says "No product found" Here is where I fetch the product: Future purchaseProduct(String productId) async { try { Set<String> _pIds = {productId}; final ProductDetailsResponse response = await _iap.queryProductDetails(_pIds); if (response.productDetails.isEmpty) { throw 'Product not found'; } final ProductDetails productDetails = response.productDetails.first; final PurchaseParam purchaseParam = PurchaseParam(productDetails: productDetails); _iap.buyConsumable(purchaseParam: purchaseParam); } catch (e) { Services.debugLog('Error purchasing product: $e'); throw e; } } I checked the product ID and it does not seems to be the problem. Is there some other steps I need to do ?

Dear Apple Support, We are currently in the process of migrating from Apple Server Notifications v1 to v2. As you know, once we switch from v1 to v2 in App Store Connect, this change is irreversible. Our team needs to ensure that our backend environment, developed in Python with Django and using the app-store-server-library==1.5.0, is fully prepared to handle all possible notification types before making that final switch. While we can receive a basic test notification from Apple, it doesn’t provide the range of data or scenarios (e.g., INITIAL_BUY, RENEWAL, GRACE_PERIOD, etc.) that our code must be able to process, store in our database, and respond to accordingly. Without comprehensive, example-rich raw notification data, we are left guessing the structure and full scope of incoming v2 notifications. Could you please provide us with a set of raw, fully representative notification payloads for every notification type supported in v2? With these examples, we can simulate the entire lifecycle of subscription events, verify our logic, and confidently complete our migration. Thank you very much for your assistance.

In my understanding, with the latest court ruling in the US, iOS apps may decide to support web-based payments for subscriptions and in-app purchases. However, are we allowed to exclusively support web-based payments and not implement StoreKit at all?

Is there an API Endpoint that I can call to check if user still have valid subscription? I want to be sure that his subscription renewal was succesful (ie: I dont want to give him another month/year/.. if his latest renewal wasnt successful) Would GET https://api.storekit.itunes.apple.com/inApps/v1/transactions/{transactionId} be the correct API endpoint to call? But I wonder, after subscription auto-renews, do we still use the same transactionId to check whether his subs is still valid?

Domain=NSURLErrorDomain Code=-1202 "The certificate for this server is invalid. You may be connecting to a server masquerading as a "auth-sandbox.itunes.apple.com", which threatens the security of your confidential information. "

In the sandbox environment, when I quickly and repeatedly purchase an item, Transaction.id will be repeated. Will there be duplication in the production environment? func pay(productId: String, orderId: String) async { guard !productId.isEmpty, !orderId.isEmpty else { return } let orderObj = ApplePayOrderModel.init(orderId: orderId, productId: productId) do { let result = try await Product.products(for: [productId]) guard let product = result.first else { return } let purchaseResult = try await product.purchase() switch purchaseResult { case .success(let verification): switch verification { case .verified(let transaction): orderObj.transactionId = String(transaction.id) await transaction.finish() case .unverified(let transaction, let error): await transaction.finish() } case .userCancelled: break case .pending: break @unknown default: break } } catch { print("error \(error.localizedDescription)") } }

Hi, We use the (now deprecated) server-side receipt verification API (*1) with the app we are maintaining and there are some points I would like confirm on how its response changes based on whether the purchase being processed was a subscription that used an offer code or not. I am particularly concerned about the following: Are there any properties of the response that are added or missing? Is there any property indicating that an offer code was used? If there is, which field is that and what values does it take? Are there any special steps or options required when processing the receipt which used an offer code on the server side? *1 https://developer.apple.com/documentation/appstorereceipts/verifyreceipt

I'm using the SwiftUI view SubscriptionStoreView (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/storekit/subscriptionstoreview/) with a subscription group that has 2 subscriptions. I set up a free trial offer in App Store Connect (https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-connect/manage-subscriptions/set-up-introductory-offers-for-auto-renewable-subscriptions/). The storekit file in Xcode is synced with the App Store. In debug build, this works and appears correctly, showing the free trial offer: But in release build, the free trial offer is not shown: The code is very simple: SubscriptionStoreView(productIDs: [ "[PRODUCT ID FOR ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION]", "[PRODUCT ID FOR BIMONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION]" ]) Does anyone have a solution? Thank you. (Xcode 16.3, macOS 15.5, iOS 18.5)

I'm receiving the following error when attempting to validate an in‑app purchase receipt: Certificate verification failed at depth 0 : forge.pki.UnknownCertificateAuthority Certificate chain validation failed: Certificate is not trusted. This error occurs during the certificate chain validation process of the receipt's PKCS#7 container. My implementation uses node‑forge to decode the receipt, extract the embedded certificate chain, and verify that the chain properly links from the leaf certificate (which directly signed the receipt) through the intermediate certificate to the trusted Apple Inc. Root certificate. What the Error Indicates: "UnknownCertificateAuthority" at depth 0: This suggests that the leaf certificate in the receipt is not being recognized as part of a valid chain because it cannot be linked back to a trusted root in my CA store. "Certificate chain validation failed: Certificate is not trusted": This means that the entire certificate chain does not chain up to a trusted certificate authority (in this case, the Apple Inc. Root certificate) as expected. Steps Taken: I verified that the receipt is a valid PKCS#7 container. I extracted the certificate chain from the receipt. However, the receipt only provided the leaf certificate. I manually added the intermediate certificate (AppleWWDRCAG5.pem) to complete the chain. I loaded the official Apple Inc. Root certificate (AppleIncRootCertificate.pem) into my CA store. Despite these steps, the validation still fails at depth 0, indicating that the leaf certificate is not recognized as being issued by a trusted authority. Request for Assistance: Could you please help clarify the following points: Is the certificate chain for receipts (leaf → intermediate → Apple Inc. Root) as expected, or has there been any change in the chain that I should account for? Is there a recommended or updated intermediate certificate I should be using for receipt validation? Are there known issues or recent changes on Apple's side that might cause the leaf certificate to not be recognized as part of a valid chain? Any guidance to resolve this certificate chain validation error would be greatly appreciated.

The app subscription function uses StoreKit. After canceling the subscription, I try to subscribe again and get the following error. I remember it was working fine before iOS 18 was released. { NSLocalizedDescription = "\U53d1\U751f\U672a\U77e5\U9519\U8bef"; NSUnderlyingError = "Error Domain=ASDErrorDomain Code=825 "(null)""; } Hope you can help me solve this problem as soon as possible. Thanks

I ran into a problem. When using Storekit1 to purchase an SKU, the user payment was successful, but StoreKit1 did return paymentCancelled to my App. I would like to know under what circumstances this problem may occur? How do I fix it? Thank you

this error occurred during the StoreKit1 payment process. Could you please tell me the reason? SKErrorDomain Code=0 "发生未知错误\" UserInfo= {NSLocalizedDescription=发生未知错误，NSUnderlyingError=0x17652ee50 {Error Domain=ASDErrorDomain Code=500"(null)\"Userlnfo={NSUnderlyingError=0x17652d530 {Error Domain=AMSErrorDomain Code=203 "(null)" Userlnfo= {NSUnderlyingError=0x17652c3c0 {Error Domain=AMSErrorDomain Code=203"(null)\"UserInfo=0x1663e5940(not displayed)}}}

users download app with Streamlined Purchasing ,but the logic of checking subscription doesn't work. there the code: func checkSubscriptionStatus() async { for await entitlement in Transaction.currentEntitlements { guard case .verified(let transaction) = entitlement else { continue } if transaction.productID == monthlyProductID || transaction.productID == yearlyProductID { if transaction.revocationDate == nil && !transaction.isUpgraded { let activeSubscribed = transaction.expirationDate ?? .distantFuture > .now if activeSubscribed { hasActiveSubscription = activeSubscribed // other operation } } } } }

代码块 让购买结果=尝试等待购买（产品，选项：[选项]） //处理支付结果 开关购买结果{ 案例让.success（验证结果）： 如果案例让.verified（交易）=验证结果{ await transaction.finish()case .userCancelled: 自我.取消回调？（） 案例.pending： /// 交易可能在未来成功，通过Transaction.updates进行通知。 打印（“苹果支付中待定”） 默认： 打破 } } 抓住 { 自我失败回电话？（”产品购买失败：\(错误)") 打印（“产品购买失败：\（错误）”） } 凭证相关信息如下： transactionid：1230000065994257 appAccountToken：D613C126-4142-4BFF-9960-00AE3F5A6F83 "jwsInfo": ["header": "eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsIng1YyI6WyJNSUlFTURDQ0E3YWdBd0lCQWdJUWZUbGZkMGZOdkZXdnpDMVlJQU5zWGpBS0JnZ3Foa2pPUFFRREF6QjFNVVF3UWdZRFZRUURERHRCY0hCc1pTQlhiM0pzWkhkcFpHVWdSR1YyWld4dmNHVnlJRkpsYkdGMGFXOXVjeUJEWlhKMGFXWnBZMkYwYVc5dUlFRjFkR2h2Y21sMGVURUxNQWtHQTFVRUN3d0NSell4RXpBUkJnTlZCQW9NQ2tGd2NHeGxJRWx1WXk0eEN6QUpCZ05WQkFZVEFsVlRNQjRYRFRJek1Ea3hNakU1TlRFMU0xb1hEVEkxTVRBeE1URTVOVEUxTWxvd2daSXhRREErQmdOVkJBTU1OMUJ5YjJRZ1JVTkRJRTFoWXlCQmNIQWdVM1J2Y21VZ1lXNWtJR2xVZFc1bGN5QlRkRzl5WlNCU1pXTmxhWEIwSUZOcFoyNXBibWN4TERBcUJnTlZCQXNNSTBGd2NHeGxJRmR2Y214a2QybGtaU0JFWlhabGJHOXdaWElnVW1Wc1lYUnBiMjV6TVJNd0VRWURWUVFLREFwQmNIQnNaU0JKYm1NdU1Rc3dDUVlEVlFRR0V3SlZVekJaTUJNR0J5cUdTTTQ5QWdFR0NDcUdTTTQ5QXdFSEEwSUFCRUZFWWUvSnFUcXlRdi9kdFhrYXVESENTY1YxMjlGWVJWLzB4aUIyNG5DUWt6UWYzYXNISk9OUjVyMFJBMGFMdko0MzJoeTFTWk1vdXZ5ZnBtMjZqWFNqZ2dJSU1JSUNCREFNQmdOVkhSTUJBZjhFQWpBQU1COEdBMVVkSXdRWU1CYUFGRDh2bENOUjAxREptaWc5N2JCODVjK2xrR0taTUhBR0NDc0dBUVVGQndFQkJHUXdZakF0QmdnckJnRUZCUWN3QW9ZaGFIUjBjRG92TDJObGNuUnpMbUZ3Y0d4bExtTnZiUzkzZDJSeVp6WXVaR1Z5TURFR0NDc0dBUVVGQnpBQmhpVm9kSFJ3T2k4dmIyTnpjQzVoY0hCc1pTNWpiMjB2YjJOemNEQXpMWGQzWkhKbk5qQXlNSUlCSGdZRFZSMGdCSUlCRlRDQ0FSRXdnZ0VOQmdvcWhraUc5Mk5rQlFZQk1JSCtNSUhEQmdnckJnRUZCUWNDQWpDQnRneUJzMUpsYkdsaGJtTmxJRzl1SUhSb2FYTWdZMlZ5ZEdsbWFXTmhkR1VnWW5rZ1lXNTVJSEJoY25SNUlHRnpjM1Z0WlhNZ1lXTmpaWEIwWVc1alpTQnZaaUIwYUdVZ2RHaGxiaUJoY0hCc2FXTmhZbXhsSUhOMFlXNWtZWEprSUhSbGNtMXpJR0Z1WkNCamIyNWthWFJwYjI1eklHOW1JSFZ6WlN3Z1kyVnlkR2xtYVdOaGRHVWdjRzlzYVdONUlHRnVaQ0JqWlhKMGFXWnBZMkYwYVc5dUlIQnlZV04wYVdObElITjBZWFJsYldWdWRITXVNRFlHQ0NzR0FRVUZCd0lCRmlwb2RIUndPaTh2ZDNkM0xtRndjR3hsTG1OdmJTOWpaWEowYVdacFkyRjBaV0YxZEdodmNtbDBlUzh3SFFZRFZSME9CQllFRkFNczhQanM2VmhXR1FsekUyWk9FK0dYNE9vL01BNEdBMVVkRHdFQi93UUVBd0lIZ0RBUUJnb3Foa2lHOTJOa0Jnc0JCQUlGQURBS0JnZ3Foa2pPUFFRREF3Tm9BREJsQWpFQTh5Uk5kc2twNTA2REZkUExnaExMSndBdjVKOGhCR0xhSThERXhkY1BYK2FCS2pqTzhlVW85S3BmcGNOWVVZNVlBakFQWG1NWEVaTCtRMDJhZHJtbXNoTnh6M05uS20rb3VRd1U3dkJUbjBMdmxNN3ZwczJZc2xWVGFtUllMNGFTczVrPSIsIk1JSURGakNDQXB5Z0F3SUJBZ0lVSXNHaFJ3cDBjMm52VTRZU3ljYWZQVGp6Yk5jd0NnWUlLb1pJemowRUF3TXdaekViTUJrR0ExVUVBd3dTUVhCd2JHVWdVbTl2ZENCRFFTQXRJRWN6TVNZd0pBWURWUVFMREIxQmNIQnNaU0JEWlhKMGFXWnBZMkYwYVc5dUlFRjFkR2h2Y21sMGVURVRNQkVHQTFVRUNnd0tRWEJ3YkdVZ1NXNWpMakVMTUFrR0ExVUVCaE1DVlZNd0hoY05NakV3TXpFM01qQXpOekV3V2hjTk16WXdNekU1TURBd01EQXdXakIxTVVRd1FnWURWUVFERER0QmNIQnNaU0JYYjNKc1pIZHBaR1VnUkdWMlpXeHZjR1Z5SUZKbGJHRjBhVzl1Y3lCRFpYSjBhV1pwWTJGMGFXOXVJRUYxZEdodmNtbDBlVEVMTUFrR0ExVUVDd3dDUnpZeEV6QVJCZ05WQkFvTUNrRndjR3hsSUVsdVl5NHhDekFKQmdOVkJBWVRBbFZUTUhZd0VBWUhLb1pJemowQ0FRWUZLNEVFQUNJRFlnQUVic1FLQzk0UHJsV21aWG5YZ3R4emRWSkw4VDBTR1luZ0RSR3BuZ24zTjZQVDhKTUViN0ZEaTRiQm1QaENuWjMvc3E2UEYvY0djS1hXc0w1dk90ZVJoeUo0NXgzQVNQN2NPQithYW85MGZjcHhTdi9FWkZibmlBYk5nWkdoSWhwSW80SDZNSUgzTUJJR0ExVWRFd0VCL3dRSU1BWUJBZjhDQVFBd0h3WURWUjBqQkJnd0ZvQVV1N0Rlb1ZnemlKcWtpcG5ldnIzcnI5ckxKS3N3UmdZSUt3WUJCUVVIQVFFRU9qQTRNRFlHQ0NzR0FRVUZCekFCaGlwb2RIUndPaTh2YjJOemNDNWhjSEJzWlM1amIyMHZiMk56Y0RBekxXRndjR3hsY205dmRHTmhaek13TndZRFZSMGZCREF3TGpBc29DcWdLSVltYUhSMGNEb3ZMMk55YkM1aGNIQnNaUzVqYjIwdllYQndiR1Z5YjI5MFkyRm5NeTVqY213d0hRWURWUjBPQkJZRUZEOHZsQ05SMDFESm1pZzk3YkI4NWMrbGtHS1pNQTRHQTFVZER3RUIvd1FFQXdJQkJqQVFCZ29xaGtpRzkyTmtCZ0lCQkFJRkFEQUtCZ2dxaGtqT1BRUURBd05vQURCbEFqQkFYaFNxNUl5S29nTUNQdHc0OTBCYUI2NzdDYUVHSlh1ZlFCL0VxWkdkNkNTamlDdE9udU1UYlhWWG14eGN4ZmtDTVFEVFNQeGFyWlh2TnJreFUzVGtVTUkzM3l6dkZWVlJUNHd4V0pDOTk0T3NkY1o0K1JHTnNZRHlSNWdtZHIwbkRHZz0iLCJNSUlDUXpDQ0FjbWdBd0lCQWdJSUxjWDhpTkxGUzVVd0NnWUlLb1pJemowRUF3TXdaekViTUJrR0ExVUVBd3dTUVhCd2JHVWdVbTl2ZENCRFFTQXRJRWN6TVNZd0pBWURWUVFMREIxQmNIQnNaU0JEWlhKMGFXWnBZMkYwYVc5dUlFRjFkR2h2Y21sMGVURVRNQkVHQTFVRUNnd0tRWEJ3YkdVZ1NXNWpMakVMTUFrR0ExVUVCaE1DVlZNd0hoY05NVFF3TkRNd01UZ3hPVEEyV2hjTk16a3dORE13TVRneE9UQTJXakJuTVJzd0dRWURWUVFEREJKQmNIQnNaU0JTYjI5MElFTkJJQzBnUnpNeEpqQWtCZ05WQkFzTUhVRndjR3hsSUVObGNuUnBabWxqWVhScGIyNGdRWFYwYUc5eWFYUjVNUk13RVFZRFZRUUtEQXBCY0hCc1pTQkpibU11TVFzd0NRWURWUVFHRXdKVlV6QjJNQkFHQnlxR1NNNDlBZ0VHQlN1QkJBQWlBMklBQkpqcEx6MUFjcVR0a3lKeWdSTWMzUkNWOGNXalRuSGNGQmJaRHVXbUJTcDNaSHRmVGpqVHV4eEV0WC8xSDdZeVlsM0o2WVJiVHpCUEVWb0EvVmhZREtYMUR5eE5CMGNUZGRxWGw1ZHZNVnp0SzUxN0lEdll1VlRaWHBta09sRUtNYU5DTUVBd0hRWURWUjBPQkJZRUZMdXczcUZZTTRpYXBJcVozcjY5NjYvYXl5U3JNQThHQTFVZEV3RUIvd1FGTUFNQkFmOHdEZ1lEVlIwUEFRSC9CQVFEQWdFR01Bb0dDQ3FHU000OUJBTURBMmdBTUdVQ01RQ0Q2Y0hFRmw0YVhUUVkyZTN2OUd3T0FFWkx1Tit5UmhIRkQvM21lb3locG12T3dnUFVuUFdUeG5TNGF0K3FJeFVDTUcxbWloREsxQTNVVDgyTlF6NjBpbU9sTTI3amJkb1h0MlFmeUZNbStZaGlkRGtMRjF2TFVhZ002QmdENTZLeUtBPT0iXX0", "payload": "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", "signature": "SXieZGabBt6xHoSaBsZ1k4AexqkNYzwZel0BEhGqc3mxrd4kzOR5wERRATXySqbqfT3WJzkDAsr9jmCdoz_7-g"], "status": "normal", "transactionId": "1230000065994257"]","Band_Phone_Num":"18653588566","Platform":"124","Oper_Time":"1745823519","verification_time":"1745823519115"},"ISP":"移动","OETM":"1745823519116","CLIENTID":"","CPURATE":"0.257","AMBERUDID":"1f72113ecc704ce4a4cc135e8af71ee6","ANAME":"","MEMRATE":"0.02346919","CITY":"北京","PROMOTION":"\\","CLIENTIP":"192.168.31.74","CLIENTIPV6":"fe80::4e3:40a8:51c3:dbf5","DB":"Apple","APN":"com.migu.cloudavp","ETM":"2025-04-28 14:58:39 116"} 请帮我查一下 是这个订单没关闭成功吗？为什么出现购买新的产品 返回的永远是这个支付凭证。

We use Transaction.currentEntitlements in StokeKit 2 to unlock functionality based on a Non-Consumable IAP but we have a case involving a refund that seems wrong and I am trying to understand the interation between transactionId, originalTransactionId & revocationReason. The Context: We have a universal App on macOS and iOS that offers a shared Non-Consumable IAP. For this example I have named it "app.lifetime" On macOS we use StoreKit 2 and I am calling the Transaction.currentEntitlements and Transaction.all functions. On iOS we are still using StoreKit 1. This example customer: Originally purchased "app.lifetime" on 2024-10-27 Was refunded by Apple for "app.lifetime" on 2024-10-29 Re-purchased "app.lifetime on 2025-02-24 (I have seen an email receipt of this transaction but it never shows up in Transaction data) (all the above happened on the mac via StoreKit 2) The Transactions (all lightly redacted for privacy): on macOS the following is returned from Transaction.currentEntitlements... { "appTransactionId" : "...8123", "bundleId" : "app", "currency" : "USD", "deviceVerification" : "...", "deviceVerificationNonce" : "...", "environment" : "Production", "inAppOwnershipType" : "PURCHASED", "originalPurchaseDate" : 1729997808000, "originalTransactionId" : "...9955", "price" : 1, "productId" : "app.lifetime", "purchaseDate" : 1729997808000, "quantity" : 1, "signedDate" : 1740416289102, "storefront" : "USA", "storefrontId" : "143441", "transactionId" : "...7511", "transactionReason" : "PURCHASE", "type" : "Non-Consumable" } Note in the above example the originalTransactionId & transactionId are different. Transaction.all however returns both transactions: [ { "appTransactionId" : "...8123", "bundleId" : "app", "currency" : "USD", "deviceVerification" : "...", "deviceVerificationNonce" : "...", "environment" : "Production", "inAppOwnershipType" : "PURCHASED", "originalPurchaseDate" : 1729997808000, "originalTransactionId" : "...9955", "price" : 1, "productId" : "app.lifetime", "purchaseDate" : 1729997808000, "quantity" : 1, "revocationDate" : 1730224102000, "revocationReason" : 0, "signedDate" : 1740415969925, "storefront" : "USA", "storefrontId" : "143441", "transactionId" : "...9955", "transactionReason" : "PURCHASE", "type" : "Non-Consumable" }, { "appTransactionId" : "...8123", "bundleId" : "app", "currency" : "USD", "deviceVerification" : "...", "deviceVerificationNonce" : "...", "environment" : "Production", "inAppOwnershipType" : "PURCHASED", "originalPurchaseDate" : 1729997808000, "originalTransactionId" : "...9955", "price" : 1, "productId" : "app.lifetime", "purchaseDate" : 1729997808000, "quantity" : 1, "signedDate" : 1740416289102, "storefront" : "USA", "storefrontId" : "143441", "transactionId" : "...7511", "transactionReason" : "PURCHASE", "type" : "Non-Consumable" } ] Note here that the original transaction ("...9955") includes a revocationDate and revocationReason that match the expected refund but the secondary transaction that seems to match on all other details is missing the revocation info. Looking at the iOS SK1 receipt data to compare, after a receipt refresh I see only a single transaction "...9955" which includes the cancellation info and transaction "...7511" is not present at all. The impact of this is that on iOS we are considering the purchase void but on macOS we are following currentEntitlements and consdering it still valid. Calling the inApps/v1/history/... server API with the "...7511" transactionId that is shown in the currentEntitlements response returns the "...9955" transaction with the correct revocation status but "...7511" is no returned at all. To Summarise: currentEntitlements on macOS shows transaction "...7511" as active and with an originalTransactionId of "...9955" all on macOS includes both "...7511" as active and "...9955" as revoked iOS reciept data shows only "...9955" as revoked Server API shows only "...9955" as revoked event when explicitly called with "...7511" Neither of them show a more recent purchase the same customer made for the same IAP product. My questions are: Is this a StoreKit bug or am I mis-understanding something? If it's a bug how can I work around it to ensure revoked purchases aren't still appearing in currentEntitlements? Under what conditions can StoreKit generate multiple transactionIds for the same underlying originalTransactionId? I had assumed (and the docs suggest) this only happens for subscriptions but here it is happening for a Non-Consumable IAP. Why would transactionId "...7511" only be present on macOS/SK2 and not visible at all on iOS/SK1 or API? I don't understand why the latest IAP from 2025-02-24 that the customer assures me they made (and has shown me the receipt for is not showing up in the Transactions history at all. Any ideas?

We are currently integrating In-App Purchases for our app and have configured App Store Server Notifications (v2) in the Sandbox environment. During testing, we observed the following issue: When a transaction is cancelled, declined, or pending (e.g., Ask to Buy flows or authorization pending), No App Store Server Notification is sent to our webhook endpoint. We only receive webhook events where the status is "purchased". This becomes a critical problem for us because our backend must accurately track transaction states including failed and pending purchases, especially for wallet top-up use cases. Additionally, we tried mocking failed transactions (via Xcode local environment and turning off In-App Purchases from Developer Settings) to simulate a technical failure scenario. Even in these cases, no webhook notification was received when the purchase failed server-side. Is it expected behavior in Sandbox that only successful transactions ("purchased") trigger webhooks? Are failed or pending transactions suppressed in Sandbox intentionally? Will webhook behavior be different in Production (i.e., will we receive webhook notifications for failures there)? Is there any extra configuration or entitlement needed to fully test failure scenarios via webhooks in Sandbox?

User Initiated a Single Consumable Purchase but Was Charged Twice A user initiated a single in-app purchase for a consumable item, but they were charged twice. Both transactions have the same purchase token. Additional details: After the user successfully completed the in-app purchase, the completeTransactions callback was triggered again. This was called at app launch using SwiftyStoreKit.completeTransactions to finish any pending transactions. Could this be causing the duplicate charge? Any insights would be appreciated.

We previously had a non-renewing subscription. I think we remove it. However, the subscription is still listed on the app's page in the App Store. How can I remove this mention? The availability is still checked for all countries. Thanks, Cody.

For testing purposes, I log out of media and purchases to use sandbox ID's to test in app purchases. Once I log out of media and purchases in device settings, in app purchases is still using my real apple ID, I'm not being prompted anymore to log into a sandbox ID for purchases.