feat(billing-platform): add refund types + record_charge_refunds endpoint (REVENG-157) by armcknight · Pull Request #303 · getsentry/sentry-protos

armcknight · 2026-06-11T04:31:14Z

Summary

Shared refund types + the endpoint driven by the charge.refunded webhook flow:

common/v1/stripe_charge.proto — new StripeRefund message + repeated refunds field on StripeCharge. Webhook handlers need per-refund metadata (id, amount, reason) for idempotent ingestion; the aggregate amount_refunded on the charge alone isn't enough.
services/charge/v1/charge.proto — new PlatformRefund canonical projection (parallels PlatformCharge), embedded as repeated refunds on PlatformCharge. The previously-cached aggregate scalars refunded (field 7) and amount_refunded (field 8) stay in the message marked [deprecated = true] (per sentry-protos policy that disallows field deletion) and consumers should derive both from the refunds list — len(refunds) > 0 for "any refund happened" and sum(refunds[*].amount_cents) for the total.
services/charge/v1/endpoint_record_charge_refunds.proto (new) — ChargeService.record_charge_refunds, called directly by the charge.refunded webhook layer to record per-refund rows idempotently and return the charge with its refund list embedded.

Proto stack

Proto PR	Paired getsentry PR	Contents
#303 (this PR, merged)	getsentry#20611	`StripeRefund` + `PlatformRefund` shared types, `record_charge_refunds`
#305	getsentry#20613	`endpoint_list_refunds.proto` (for customer + admin refund rendering)

Test plan

Rust bindings regenerated by CI's Build Rust bindings step + auto-committed
Python bindings regenerated by CI
Consumed downstream by getsentry#20611

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

linear-code · 2026-06-11T04:31:17Z

REVENG-157

github-actions · 2026-06-11T04:31:29Z

The latest Buf updates on your PR. Results from workflow ci / buf-checks (pull_request).

Build	Format	Lint	Breaking	Updated (UTC)
`✅ passed`	`✅ passed`	`✅ passed`	`✅ passed`	Jun 12, 2026, 12:34 AM

…oint Adds the shared refund types + the charge-service endpoint driven by the `charge.refunded` webhook flow (REVENG-157): - ``common/v1/stripe_charge.proto``: new ``StripeRefund`` message + ``repeated refunds`` field on ``StripeCharge`` so webhook handlers receive per-refund metadata (id, amount, reason) and can record refunds idempotently — the aggregate ``amount_refunded`` on the charge alone isn't enough. - ``services/charge/v1/charge.proto``: new ``PlatformRefund`` canonical projection, paralleling ``PlatformCharge``. The shared response type across all three refund endpoints, so it ships here in the base PR. - ``services/charge/v1/endpoint_record_charge_refunds.proto``: ``ChargeService.record_charge_refunds`` — records per-refund rows from a Stripe webhook payload idempotently (keyed on refund stripe_id) and syncs the aggregate ``amount_refunded`` / ``refunded`` state. The webhook handler in getsentry calls ``ChargeService.record_charge_refunds`` directly. We considered an ``InvoicerService.handle_charge_refunded`` wrapper (mirroring the ``charge.succeeded`` / ``charge.dispute.created`` pattern) but the wrapper would have been a passthrough -- no multi-service orchestration to coordinate, just a single call. ``charge.updated`` set the precedent for skipping the presentation layer when only one data service is involved (getsentry#20559). The other two refund endpoints (``refund_charge``, ``list_refunds_by_invoice``) are split into separate PRs paired with their getsentry consumers. Rust + Python bindings regenerated by CI. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

…e_stripe_id Per review feedback on #303: - ``PlatformRefund.charge_stripe_id`` removed (field 2). Nothing consumes this field today; if a future caller needs to identify the parent charge of a standalone ``PlatformRefund`` (e.g. grouping by charge in a UI), we can add it back as a new field number then. - ``PlatformCharge.refunds`` added (field 10): the recorded refund rows against the charge, ordered by ``date_added_st``. Populated by endpoints that have already loaded the refund rows; left empty by endpoints that only need the aggregate ``amount_refunded`` cache. - ``RecordChargeRefundsResponse.refunds`` removed (field 2). Refunds now live under ``response.charge.refunds`` -- the response only needs the single ``charge`` field. Matches the DB relationship (refunds belong to a specific charge) and avoids duplicating the same data at two levels of the response. Remaining ``PlatformRefund`` field numbers compacted (3..6 -> 2..5) since this message hasn't shipped to any consumer yet. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

Make the unit explicit on the canonical refund projection. Matches the unit-explicit naming used on the underlying Django model (``PlatformRefund.amount_cents``) and avoids consumers having to guess whether the value is dollars, cents, or something else. Field number is unchanged (3), so wire-compatible with any in-flight serialized messages from earlier #303 iterations. The sibling ``PlatformCharge.amount`` / ``StripeRefund.amount`` / ``StripeCharge.amount`` aren't renamed -- their values come from Stripe or from the legacy ``Charge`` model, where the unit-implicit naming is already a settled convention. Following up on those would be a broader audit (#REVENG-???) and out of scope for this PR. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

…arge Per review feedback on getsentry#20611: the cached ``amount_refunded`` / ``refunded`` fields on ``PlatformCharge`` are derivable from the embedded ``refunds`` list -- consumers can sum ``refunds[*].amount_cents`` for the aggregate, and check ``len(refunds) > 0`` (or sum == amount) for "is this refunded." Storing them as separate fields creates a drift risk between the cache and the rows (sentry-protos#303 bugbot). Removing fields 7 (``refunded``) and 8 (``amount_refunded``) from the ``PlatformCharge`` proto. Field numbers reserved so they can't be re-used for an incompatible meaning. The corresponding service-side change (drop the cache write in ``record_charge_refunds``, populate ``refunds`` instead of the aggregate fields) lands in getsentry#20611. The DB columns on ``accounts_platformcharge`` are inherited from ``AbstractCharge`` and remain in place since the legacy ``Charge`` model still uses them; splitting the abstract class to fully drop the columns from ``accounts_platformcharge`` is a separate follow-up. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

…stead of removing The previous attempt (commit 67ce9cf) removed fields 7 (``refunded``) and 8 (``amount_refunded``) and replaced them with ``reserved 7, 8;`` so the field numbers couldn't be re-used. That tripped buf's ``FIELD_NO_DELETE`` rule, which sentry-protos enables deliberately: PR #168 lifted it once to clean up unused prototype protos, and PR #169 immediately restored it as a permanent guardrail. Restoring the fields with ``[deprecated = true]`` so: - buf is happy (no field deletion). - Consumers get a deprecation marker steering them toward ``refunds[*].amount_cents`` as the source of truth. - No drift risk in practice: the getsentry-side producer (``_charge_to_proto``) is already not populating these fields (getsentry#20611 commit ``96fd005``), and a search confirms no getsentry code reads ``PlatformCharge.refunded`` / ``PlatformCharge.amount_refunded`` -- the proto is internal to the billing platform service. This matches the spirit of Noah's review feedback (don't carry a cache that can drift from the rows) while respecting the repo's field- deletion policy. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

…-record-charge-refunds'

cursor

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 1 potential issue.

^{❌ Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with cloud agents, enable autofix in the Cursor dashboard.}

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 3167124. Configure here.}

This was referenced Jun 11, 2026

feat(billing-platform): add ChargeService.refund_charge endpoint (REVENG-157) #304

Closed

feat(billing-platform): add ChargeService.list_refunds_by_invoice endpoint (REVENG-157) #305

Merged

armcknight force-pushed the andrewmcknight/reveng-157-protos-record-charge-refunds branch from fc673f0 to 83023b0 Compare June 11, 2026 05:29

chore: Regenerate Rust bindings

d0a9bc5

armcknight marked this pull request as ready for review June 11, 2026 05:43

armcknight requested a review from a team as a code owner June 11, 2026 05:43

cursor Bot reviewed Jun 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread proto/sentry_protos/billing/v1/services/charge/v1/endpoint_record_charge_refunds.proto

noahsmartin reviewed Jun 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread proto/sentry_protos/billing/v1/common/v1/stripe_charge.proto

noahsmartin reviewed Jun 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread proto/sentry_protos/billing/v1/services/charge/v1/charge.proto Outdated

noahsmartin reviewed Jun 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread proto/sentry_protos/billing/v1/services/charge/v1/charge.proto Outdated

noahsmartin reviewed Jun 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread proto/sentry_protos/billing/v1/services/charge/v1/endpoint_record_charge_refunds.proto Outdated

Andrew McKnight and others added 4 commits June 11, 2026 10:51

Merge CI-regenerated Rust bindings into review branch

a7befc8

chore: Regenerate Rust bindings

53dbb75

noahsmartin approved these changes Jun 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

sentry Bot reviewed Jun 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread rust/src/sentry_protos.billing.v1.services.charge.v1.rs

Andrew McKnight and others added 5 commits June 11, 2026 15:18

chore: Regenerate Rust bindings

1175608

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/andrewmcknight/reveng-157-protos…

cd1df86

…-record-charge-refunds'

chore: Regenerate Rust bindings

3167124

cursor Bot reviewed Jun 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread proto/sentry_protos/billing/v1/services/charge/v1/charge.proto

armcknight merged commit 06694eb into main Jun 12, 2026
16 checks passed

sentry-release-bot Bot mentioned this pull request Jun 12, 2026

publish: getsentry/sentry-protos@0.28.0 getsentry/publish#8555

Closed

4 tasks

armcknight changed the title ~~feat(billing-platform): add refund types + record_charge_refunds/handle_charge_refunded endpoints (REVENG-157)~~ feat(billing-platform): add refund types + record_charge_refunds endpoint (REVENG-157) Jun 12, 2026

armcknight mentioned this pull request Jun 12, 2026

chore: Bump sentry-protos 0.28.0 getsentry/sentry#117579

Merged

2 tasks

armcknight mentioned this pull request Jun 16, 2026

feat(billing-platform): add batched ChargeService.list_charges_for_invoice_ids (REVENG-157) #312

Closed

3 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

feat(billing-platform): add refund types + record_charge_refunds endpoint (REVENG-157)#303

feat(billing-platform): add refund types + record_charge_refunds endpoint (REVENG-157)#303
armcknight merged 11 commits into
mainfrom
andrewmcknight/reveng-157-protos-record-charge-refunds

armcknight commented Jun 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

linear-code Bot commented Jun 11, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cursor Bot left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

armcknight commented Jun 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary

Proto stack

Test plan

Uh oh!

linear-code Bot commented Jun 11, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cursor Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

armcknight commented Jun 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Jun 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading