Thanks for your feedback! Following your comment, we might soon provide a public test API key that will return a predefined anonymized JSON answer so developers can hack the API straight away ;-)
As already said in a previous comment: << To be fully honest, it has been an internal debate: "use or not use array" ;-) I personally wanted to use them... so, thanks for your feedback ;-) >>
* I thought that a secret key part of the query string (together with the usage of HTTPS) is simpler. But, I might be more a question of personal preference, meaning that we should provide different way to authenticate ;-) I will put this on our to-do list.
* I fully agree, my mistake, I will check this!
* That makes sense... I personally have a preference for the underscores, we will discuss that at Eligible.
* Idem.
* To be fully honest, it has been an internal debate: "use or not use array" ;-) I personally wanted to use them... so, thanks for your feedback ;-)
* That makes sense... we will discuss that at Eligible.
* Usually, when I design a grammar, I always want to have the UOM next to any number! BUT, in this case, I did not pay enough attention to it... This Eligibility story is - according to my current knowledge - a US and only a US story.
* You are right! Following other comments, we might soon provide a public test API key that will return a predefined anonymized JSON answer so developers can hack the API straight away ;-)
* I can tell you that our JSON structure is already quite different from the flat raw X12 271 format. But, we might have lost a bit our track to make it as simple as possible to consume... Any suggestion is welcome ;-)
Thanks again for your feedback, please wait to get a full JSON instance - via updated documentation and/or the test API key - and carry on with such constructive feedback.