Handling more Stripe metas with the order helper class

[wjrosa]

Base PR #4613
P2 peNR48-1Jc-p2

Changes proposed in this Pull Request:

As part of the Order Helper class project, I am including some additional meta keys to be handled by the new class and implementing the new methods across our codebase.

The metas handled here are: _stripe_customer_id, _stripe_card_id, _stripe_upe_payment_type, _stripe_upe_waiting_for_redirect, and _stripe_upe_redirect_processed.

Testing instructions

• Code review
• Check if the tests are still passing
• Perform some basic smoke testing to confirm no regression was introduced

---

• Covered with tests (or have a good reason not to test in description ☝️)
• Tested on mobile (or does not apply)

Changelog entry

• This Pull Request does not require a changelog entry. (Comment required below)

Changelog Entry Comment

Comment

Post merge

• Added testing instructions to the Release Testing Instructions wiki page (or does not apply)
• Added the needs docs label (or does not apply)
• Included this PR in the Release Thread scope (or does not apply)

[daledupreez]

I have some feedback, based mostly on the naming, but there are one or two other areas that may drive changes. I'll dive into testing after confirming we don't plan to make any changes.

[daledupreez]

Question on the types: might we expect instances of WC_Order_Refund to be supplied to any of these helper methods? If so, we might want to loosen the types to accept ?WC_Abstract_Order.

[wjrosa]

Looking at the code, I don't think so. I don't see any references to WC_Order_Refund in the flows where this method is called. But happy to make this change if you think it is safer 👍

[daledupreez]

From my side, I was mostly flagging it as a possible concern. I don't know the full codebase well enough to know what objects we expect, so having the strict type might be a subtle compatibility issue. Using WC_Abstract_Order would be less likely to break, even if we never see a refund or similar, while the slightly more restrictive type would throw an exception for an unexpected object.

Maybe this is something we should tackle in a separate, dedicated follow-up if we decide to make any changes.

[daledupreez]

The changes LGTM, and the tests are clean, so I think we should 🚢 .

[malithsen]

These updates look good to me, and smoke tests didn't reveal any issues.