---
id: TST-COM-ORD-097
title: The void refund plan of a settlement with a card part
kind: integration
product_area: commerce
module: orders
revision: 1
status: draft
source_sha:
  services-commerce: c8b66a98e2490617aec38ba5c8165dd9bd0a8f9b
repository: services-commerce
files:
  - modules/orders/tests/integration/services/orders/void-refund.integration.spec.js
implements:
  - ATS-COM-ORD-008-06
environment: local
implementation_state: implemented
latest_result: not-run
latest_run_at: null
latest_run_ref: null
conformance: not-verified
estimated_minutes: 2
isolation: The suite creates its own test workspace records and removes them using the fixture cleanup.
evidence:
  - provenance: test
    source: 'services-commerce:modules/orders/tests/integration/services/orders/void-refund.integration.spec.js'
    test_cases:
      - >-
        requests one void adjustment for the order: the card part refunded under the void’s key, then the memo
        of the invoice line
      - names the credit part and the card part on order.void_refund_planned
      - voids the order and plans nothing of the leg
      - 'raises adjustment_failed on the tender for a person, and records the leg as unresolved'
scenario_coverage:
  - scenario: ATS-COM-ORD-008-06
    test_cases:
      - 'raises adjustment_failed on the tender for a person, and records the leg as unresolved'
    scope: >-
      The cited cases exercise the scenario’s listed fixture outcomes; this register makes no verified
      conformance claim.
dependency_evidence:
  provenance: test
  source: 'services-commerce:modules/orders/tests/integration/services/orders/void-refund.integration.spec.js'
  declared_by_test: >-
    PostgreSQL, the persistence services, the void, the adjustment worker, its fixture commands. Doubled:
    Accounting's payments read (an answering and an unanswering stand-in of `listPaymentsOfOrder`), the
    billing port (the fixture).
---

# The void refund plan of a settlement with a card part

## Verification Boundary

The suite exercises persistence or workflow operations against the local integration database.

## What This Suite Proves

The registered cases check the void refund plan of a settlement with a card part with their fixture records and assertions. Scenario bindings name only the examples those cases exercise.

## What It Does Not Prove

A registered file supplies no run result or verified conformance by itself. Local fixtures do not establish deployed cross-service behavior or complete browser journeys.

## Real Dependencies and Test Doubles

PostgreSQL and the exercised Commerce persistence or workflow code are real. Remote service records, clocks and transports follow the suite’s fixtures.

## Must Not Be Doubled

The database constraints, role restrictions, locks and transactions exercised by this suite must use PostgreSQL.