Account


Earned badges

Earned badges

Achievement: Latest Unlocked

Topic Started

Topics

Hi, 


I believe "sending of email" has been turned off on the sandbox I am using. we don't want them to send because sign them in the IFrame. 

When a particular signer or role signs can we obfuscate certain data points to prevent them from seeing information?  ...while a different signer/role CAN see the information.

Hello, I'm upgrading an application that user Java SDK to the REST API. 

The application currently does in-person signing of 2 signers in an iFrame.

In our current (pre 11.42) implementation, we are presenting forms in an iframe, and incrementing a counter in JavaScript, which will also forward to different page when all forms have been signed.

Hello, I need some tips to get me started with an upgrading to SDK 11.41 from a very old version.

Replies Created

Reply to:

0 votes

Thank you Duo This is very helpful. 

We currently do all signing in an iFrame, and are introducing email with this upgrade.

Just so I understand the flow, after the withSigner and signingOrder is established,     
eslClient.sendPackage(packageId) will begin the email process, and OneSpan controls the sending of emails?

SigningOrder(2) email will not be sent until SigningOrder(1) is complete, and so on?
What if order is not important, and we would like them to sign in any order, is that possible?

Lastly, how do I get access to https://sandbox.esignlive.com/a/login ? No one in our shop has access anymore. 
Thanks again, Randy


0 votes

Thanks Duo. 

Release 11.42 is the reason I am doing sandbox testing. On the subject, I want to make sure my assumptions are correct.

Is the behavior we see using the sandbox, what we will see in US1 Production apps.e-signlive.com when 11.42 goes live on July 6th?

If we test successfully with the sandbox, is that confirmation that our code will work when the release occurs?

 

Also, thank you for that code.

 

Randy


Reply to:

0 votes

Thank you. Very helpful. Some follow-ups:
 

1) our current account is being used for in-person and has Disable InPerson Activation on. So no emails are sent. I don't see anything in our code (old SDK) that indicates inPerson =true. But yet we are doing in-person signing. Unfortunately, our package is created and sent before the point where the user would decide on remote or in-person. Does the "inPerson:True" break remote signing? I guess I'm wondering what that flag actually does, since doesn't control email sending.

2) What is the practical difference between /api/authenticationTokens/signer/multiUse and singleUse ? Does that mean the user can start again if they close their browser for multiUse and not for singleUse?

Thanks, Randy


Reply to:

0 votes

I'm not clear on binding. Though we use it in our (very) old SDK implementation. 

1) I'm not exactly sure what it does for us today. That is something I need to understand. 

For us, it seems to tie signature to date fields. 

we create a field with type SIGNATURE and subType FULLNAME (or INITIALS)
and then create another field type INPUT and subType LABEL and .setBinding("{approval.signed}"). This is associated with a date field but I don't understand how it knows the INPUT LABEL is a date field (?). And is it that the two fields are in the same approval that connects them?

After that it puts both in the same approval connected to a role, and it seems the date field is updated when it's the signature field is signed. 

2) Besides knowing what it is doing today for us, I need to understand the Rest API equivalent. Is there something more in depth. I used the sample to send the package and document, but it didn't do much with binding.

3) If the binding of a fileld to a signer will hide a field from other signers, I'm not sure this is a solution for hiding in my scenario. But I would like to understand it better. I hope the result of 1 and 2 will help me with that. 

Thanks again,

Randy


Reply to: Obfuscating certain documents fields varied by signer/role

0 votes

Thanks Duo!

1) My assumption is I can use "name" instead of "id". The PDFs I'm using are not new and were providing by our clients. Since the beginning when we started using the sdk they have been setup to use "name" to identify fields.

          "fields": [
            {
              "type": "SIGNATURE",
              "subtype": "FULLNAME",
              "name": "Sign_InsuredSignature_0",
               "binding": null,
              "extract": true
            },
            {
              "type": "INPUT",
              "subtype": "LABEL",
              "name": "DateSigned_0",
              "binding": "{approval.signed}",
              "extract": true
            }

2) We have a new situation, where the signing date field is broken up. Any thoughts on how to handle this?

___ day of, ____ 20___

 

Thanks, Randy


Subscriptions

Topics Replies Freshness Views Users

Hi, 


I believe "sending of email" has been turned off on the sandbox I am using. we don't want them to send because sign them in the IFrame. 

5 3 months 2 weeks ago 33

When a particular signer or role signs can we obfuscate certain data points to prevent them from seeing information?  ...while a different signer/role CAN see the information.

5 4 months ago 32

Hello, I'm upgrading an application that user Java SDK to the REST API. 

The application currently does in-person signing of 2 signers in an iFrame.

3 4 months 1 week ago 45

In our current (pre 11.42) implementation, we are presenting forms in an iframe, and incrementing a counter in JavaScript, which will also forward to different page when all forms have been signed.

3 6 months 4 weeks ago 17

Hello, I need some tips to get me started with an upgrading to SDK 11.41 from a very old version.

3 7 months 1 week ago 76

Code Share

This user has not submitted any code shares.