I’m trying to submit the first release of my iOS app together with the app’s first consumable in-app purchases, and I’m stuck in what looks like an App Store Connect state issue. My app was already rejected by App Review because the in-app purchases did not appear inside the app when the reviewer opened the paywall. Current setup: First app release Current app version page: iOS App Version 1.0.2 Current attached build: 5 App has never been released before 4 consumable IAPs: com.glowup.credits.100 com.glowup.credits.500 com.glowup.credits.1000 com.glowup.credits.2500 What I see in App Store Connect: All 4 IAPs show Waiting for Review On the iOS App Version 1.0.2 page, the In-App Purchases and Subscriptions section does not appear at all Because of that, I cannot explicitly select or attach the IAPs from the version page What I’ve already done: Uploaded a new build and attached build 5 to version 1.0.2 Removed my local StoreKit configuration file so the app now uses live App Store / StoreKit only Confirmed RevenueCat is configured correctly and sees the offering/packages RevenueCat logs show the products exist remotely, but StoreKit cannot fetch any live products and returns an “offerings empty / none of the products could be fetched” type error RevenueCat also reports the products are still in WAITING_FOR_REVIEW My questions: If the IAPs already show Waiting for Review, are they automatically linked to the current app submission? Is it expected that the In-App Purchases and Subscriptions section can disappear from the app version page in this state? For a first-release app that was already rejected, is attaching a new build and clicking Update Review enough, or is there another step required to associate the IAPs with the resubmission? Has anyone seen App Review reject an app for missing IAPs while the IAPs were still pending review and not yet fetchable from StoreKit? Any guidance from someone who has dealt with this exact first-release + first-IAP submission flow would help a lot.

Hi everyone, I’m currently developing an iOS app using React Native and implementing consumable In-App Purchases (IAP). I'm facing an issue where getProducts returns an empty array without any error messages when testing on a TestFlight build. I have already completed the following setup: Agreements, Tax, and Banking: All forms are signed and the status is "Active" in App Store Connect. Product Configuration: The Consumable product is created in App Store Connect with the status "Ready to Submit". App Store Connect Integration: The product is correctly linked under the "In-App Purchases and Subscriptions" section of the App version. Xcode Capability: The "In-App Purchase" capability has been added to the project. Implementation: The Product ID in my React Native code (using react-native-iap) matches the ID in App Store Connect exactly. Despite these steps, the product list remains empty. Are there any hidden requirements or specific configurations for TestFlight that I might have missed? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Hello Apple Developer Support / StoreKit Team, We recently observed a behavior regarding the appAccountToken in App Store Server Notifications v2 that seems to completely contradict the official documentation. According to the Set App Account Token documentation: The same appAccountToken continues to apply to renewal transactions if the customer upgrades, downgrades, or cross-grades the subscription. However, we encountered a scenario where an active in-app crossgrade resulted in an updated/overwritten appAccountToken inside the subsequent JWSRenewalInfoDecodedPayload, despite our backend never calling the Set App Account Token REST API. Our Observation: A user subscribes to our 1-month plan (Product A). Apple generates an originalTransactionId bound to their initial appAccountToken (Token A). Later, a crossgrade to a 1-year plan (Product B) is initiated from within the app while the user is logged into a different account in our system (Token B), but using the same underlying Apple ID on the device. When the crossgrade takes effect at the next renewal date, we receive a DID_RENEW webhook. The Anomaly (See Attached Screenshots): Upon decoding the JWSRenewalInfoDecodedPayload from the webhook, we noticed that the appAccountToken had unexpectedly changed to the new token (Token B). As shown in the attached redacted screenshots: Screenshot 1 (Before/Original): JWSRenewalInfoDecodedPayload for Product 00001 shows the appAccountToken ending in ...e9a. Screenshot 2 (After Crossgrade): JWSRenewalInfoDecodedPayload for Product yearly_saver shows the appAccountToken has mutated to ending in ...507, even though the originalTransactionId remains exactly the same. To reiterate, our server did not call the POST /inApps/v1/subscriptions/appAccountToken/{originalTransactionId} endpoint to manually overwrite this token at any point. Our Questions: Is this the intended StoreKit 2 behavior? Does Apple automatically overwrite the base appAccountToken in the RenewalInfo if a new token is somehow associated during an active in-app crossgrade transaction? If this is intended, could the documentation be clarified? The current phrasing strongly suggests the token is permanently locked to the initial purchase and will never change during crossgrades unless the REST API is explicitly called. While this behavior is actually quite helpful for our backend to track multi-account users, we want to ensure we aren't relying on an undocumented bug that might be patched unexpectedly. Any insights from the StoreKit engineering team would be highly appreciated. Thank you!

Prerequisites We plan to sell non-consumable items via in-app purchases. The app includes a restore button. We understand that after a payment is completed on a smartphone, the server must verify the receipt and activate the item in the database, and the app must then execute the transaction finish process. Due to our app’s constraints, there are specific cases where we must execute the transaction finish process on the app side without first performing the item activation process in the database. We do not know exactly what the transaction finish process entails. Questions What are the implications in the following cases? The payment was completed, but the product activation process in our database failed, and the transaction finish process was not executed on the app side. After restarting the app, an OS notification indicating an incomplete transaction appeared, and only the finish process was executed. In this scenario, we assume that the OS notification will not appear next time, and the user can simply activate the purchase by starting a transaction recovery. Are there any potential concerns or bugs that might occur? What are the implications if the product activation process in our database succeeds, but the finish operation fails to complete normally due to the user exiting the app or similar circumstances? Our assumption is that since the product is activated in our database, we can provide value for the charge without issue, and there is no deterioration in UX, such as the inability to process refunds in the app store. Are there any potential concerns or bugs that might arise? Regarding this inquiry, if you have any information—such as whether this scenario would result in a rejection during the app review process—we would appreciate it if you could share it with us.

Hi, I’m seeing a reproducible issue with local StoreKit testing on the iOS 26.4 Simulator. Environment: Xcode 17E192 iOS 26.4 Simulator StoreKit Testing in Xcode using a .storekit configuration file attached to the Run scheme SubscriptionStoreView StoreKit 2 What happens: Tapping a subscription purchase button starts the flow, but the purchase immediately returns: StoreKit.Product.PurchaseResult.userCancelled No purchase dialog appears. No transaction is created. Debug > StoreKit > Manage Transactions remains empty. Transaction.updates, Transaction.unfinished, and Transaction.currentEntitlements do not produce any new purchase-related events. Important detail: This happens not only in my app, but also in Apple’s sample: Implementing a store in your app using the StoreKit API I tested the sample with its own .storekit file and shared scheme. The sample shows the same behavior on iOS 26.4 Simulator. On iOS 26.2 Simulator: The purchase flow does react differently. I see the warning: Making a purchase without listening for transaction updates risks missing successful purchases. Create a Task to iterate Transaction.updates at launch. So 26.2 does not appear completely broken in the same way. What I already checked: The .storekit file is attached to the active Run scheme. Simulated failures are disabled: _disableDialogs = false _failTransactionsEnabled = false _storeKitErrors = [] I tried both SubscriptionStoreView(groupID:) and SubscriptionStoreView(productIDs:) I erased app data, reinstalled, and tested on a fresh simulator. Manage Transactions has no records at all. My own app and Apple’s sample both reproduce the issue on 26.4 Simulator. This makes me suspect a simulator/runtime regression in local StoreKit testing on iOS 26.4 rather than an app-specific bug. Has anyone else seen this on iOS 26.4 Simulator? Is this a known issue with StoreKit Testing in Xcode on the 26.4 runtime? If needed, I can provide the exact simulator/Xcode versions and a minimal repro using Apple’s sample project.

I have the typical StoreKit 2 manager class, where I check currentEntitlements for subscription. I have filed a feedback (FB22349195), I hope someone can take a look at it. func updateCustomerProductStatus() async { var activeSubscription: String? = nil // BUG: In some cases the currentEntitlements does not emit a transaction until the device is reboot for await result in Transaction.currentEntitlements { print("Found transaction: \(result)") // This print does not appear until a restart! do { let transaction = try checkVerified(result) // Skip revoked transactions if transaction.revocationDate != nil { print("Skipping revoked transaction for \(transaction.productID)") continue } // Skip expired subscriptions if let expirationDate = transaction.expirationDate, expirationDate < Date() { print("Skipping expired subscription for \(transaction.productID)") continue } // Check product type switch transaction.productType { case .autoRenewable: activeSubscription = transaction.productID default: break } } catch { print("Unable to verify transaction: \(error)") } } // Update state once after processing all entitlements self.activeSubscription = activeSubscription print("updateCustomerProductStatus() activeSubscription: \(activeSubscription ?? "nil")") } There is some unexpected behavior where the currentEntitlements does not emit a result until the iPhone device is reboot. This bug appeared in iOS 26.4 (and in the betas).

how to disable streamline purchasing, when I click turn off, it show error Streamlined purchasing cannot be turned off because your latest approved binary doesn’t include the required StoreKit APIs My app has subscribe button to click before start to use though not need to login, chatgpt had done the store kit and subscription part, do not understand why it can not turn off streamlined purchasing

[EDIT: Please ignore. Will delete in a second] Transaction.currentEntitlements is returning the complete history of transactions on a subscription product. I have a program with an In-App Purchase for a monthly subscription. I am testing with a local StoreKit file in Xcode. I configured the StoreKit test file to update every minute. When the program starts, I retrieve the current transactions from StoreKit to see if there is an active subscription. for await verificationResult in Transaction.currentEntitlements { guard case .verified(let transaction) = verificationResult else { continue } // update status for subscriptions This morning's testing is showing transactions for all transactions, both current and past. The current subscription renewal is sent plus all the past renewals that have expired. I thought in my previous testing that only one transaction (i.e., the latest/current) was sent per Product ID. Is this (all subscription transactions) the expected behavior, or should I file a bug report? Example debug output from Transaction.currentEntitlements loop (top transaction is the current one, but past expired ones are provided too; "DEBUG CURRENT ----" separates individual transactions): DEBUG CURRENT: getCurrentEntitlements BEGIN DEBUG CURRENT ---- DEBUG CURRENT: for product pro.monthly DEBUG CURRENT: Verified Reason: Renewal DEBUG CURRENT: Ownership: Purchased DEBUG CURRENT: Purchases: is good DEBUG CURRENT: signed date: 2026-03-26 17:37:12 +0000 DEBUG CURRENT: purchase date: 2026-03-26 17:36:24 +0000 DEBUG CURRENT: environment: Environment(rawValue: "Xcode") DEBUG CURRENT: store front: Storefront(countryCode: "USA", id: "143441", localeStorage: en_US (fixed en_US)) DEBUG CURRENT ---- DEBUG CURRENT: for product pro.monthly DEBUG CURRENT: Verified Reason: Renewal DEBUG CURRENT: Ownership: Purchased DEBUG CURRENT: Expired 2026-03-26 17:36:24 +0000 DEBUG CURRENT: signed date: 2026-03-26 17:35:25 +0000 DEBUG CURRENT: purchase date: 2026-03-26 17:35:24 +0000 DEBUG CURRENT: environment: Environment(rawValue: "Xcode") DEBUG CURRENT: store front: Storefront(countryCode: "USA", id: "143441", localeStorage: en_US (fixed en_US)) DEBUG CURRENT ---- DEBUG CURRENT: for product pro.monthly DEBUG CURRENT: Verified Reason: Renewal DEBUG CURRENT: Ownership: Purchased DEBUG CURRENT: Expired 2026-03-26 17:35:24 +0000 DEBUG CURRENT: signed date: 2026-03-26 17:34:25 +0000 DEBUG CURRENT: purchase date: 2026-03-26 17:34:24 +0000 DEBUG CURRENT: environment: Environment(rawValue: "Xcode") DEBUG CURRENT: store front: Storefront(countryCode: "USA", id: "143441", localeStorage: en_US (fixed en_US))

Hello, I’m facing an issue with StoreKit where no products are returned in Sandbox. Context: App: SylvoY (Bundle ID: fr.sylvoy.app) Product ID: sylvoy_sylvoy_premium_v2_monthly Type: auto-renewable subscription Build: TestFlight 1.0.16 (Build 20) Device: physical iPhone Environment: Sandbox account Setup: Paid Applications Agreement: Active Banking & Tax: Active Product status: Ready to Submit Product is linked to the current TestFlight build Issue: When fetching products using StoreKit, the returned array is empty: productsCount = 0 products = [] Expected: Product metadata (price, description) should be returned. Actual: No products are returned at all. Additional info: Product identifier is correct Tested on real device (not simulator) Installed via TestFlight Sandbox account properly configured This issue is currently blocking validation of the subscription flow before release. DTS Case-ID: 18968852 (redirected here) Any help would be appreciated.

Hi everyone, I'm building an iOS app using Capacitor 6 with Swift Package Manager (SPM). I have a custom native plugin (AppleIAPPlugin) for StoreKit 2 In-App Purchases that lives in the App target (not as an SPM package). Despite compiling successfully, the JavaScript bridge throws: "AppleIAP" plugin is not implemented on ios Setup AppleIAPPlugin.swift: swift import Foundation import Capacitor import StoreKit @objc(AppleIAPPlugin) public class AppleIAPPlugin: CAPPlugin, CAPBridgedPlugin { public let identifier = "AppleIAPPlugin" public let jsName = "AppleIAP" public let pluginMethods: [CAPPluginMethod] = [ CAPPluginMethod(name: "getProducts", returnType: CAPPluginReturnPromise), CAPPluginMethod(name: "purchase", returnType: CAPPluginReturnPromise), CAPPluginMethod(name: "restorePurchases", returnType: CAPPluginReturnPromise), CAPPluginMethod(name: "getCurrentEntitlements", returnType: CAPPluginReturnPromise), CAPPluginMethod(name: "openManageSubscriptions", returnType: CAPPluginReturnPromise), ] @objc func getProducts(_ call: CAPPluginCall) { /* StoreKit 2 implementation */ } @objc func purchase(_ call: CAPPluginCall) { /* ... */ } // etc. } AppleIAPPlugin.m: objc #import <Foundation/Foundation.h> #import <Capacitor/Capacitor.h> CAP_PLUGIN(AppleIAPPlugin, "AppleIAP", CAP_PLUGIN_METHOD(getProducts, CAPPluginReturnPromise); CAP_PLUGIN_METHOD(purchase, CAPPluginReturnPromise); CAP_PLUGIN_METHOD(restorePurchases, CAPPluginReturnPromise); CAP_PLUGIN_METHOD(getCurrentEntitlements, CAPPluginReturnPromise); CAP_PLUGIN_METHOD(openManageSubscriptions, CAPPluginReturnPromise); ) MyBridgeViewController.swift (custom bridge to register the plugin): swift import UIKit import Capacitor class MyBridgeViewController: CAPBridgeViewController { override open func capacitorDidLoad() { bridge?.registerPluginType(AppleIAPPlugin.self) } } Main.storyboard points to MyBridgeViewController (module: App) instead of CAPBridgeViewController. TypeScript side: typescript import { registerPlugin } from "@capacitor/core"; export const AppleIAP = registerPlugin("AppleIAP"); What I've verified Both .swift and .m files are in the Xcode project's Compile Sources build phase nm on the compiled binary confirms OBJC_CLASS_$_AppleIAPPlugin symbol exists The build succeeds with zero errors Other SPM-based Capacitor plugins (Share, Media, NativeAudio) work fine — they have pluginMethods and jsName symbols in the binary; my custom plugin does NOT A bridging header (App-Bridging-Header.h) is configured with #import <Capacitor/Capacitor.h> What I've tried (all failed) .m file with CAP_PLUGIN macro only (no CAPBridgedPlugin in Swift) Added CAPBridgedPlugin protocol conformance to Swift class Created MyBridgeViewController subclass with registerPluginType() in capacitorDidLoad() Removed/added override public func load() method Added #import <Foundation/Foundation.h> to .m file Various bridging header configurations Multiple clean builds and derived data wipes Environment Xcode 16 Capacitor 6 (via SPM, binary xcframework) iOS 17+ deployment target Physical device testing (not simulator) Question How should a custom plugin in the App target be registered with Capacitor 6 when using SPM? The SPM-based plugins from node_modules get auto-discovered, but my custom plugin in the App target does not. Is there a step I'm missing to make registerPluginType() work, or should I structure my custom plugin as a local SPM package instead? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Hello, I got Purchase Error Couldn’t communicate with a helper application. when button 'Buy Pro' clicked in my app it uses storekit subscription created (correct id in configuration.storekit) got this error in console: Purchase did not return a transaction: Error Domain=ASDErrorDomain Code=5115 "Received failure in response from Xcode" UserInfo={NSDebugDescription=Received failure in response from Xcode, NSUnderlyingError=0xc5bc1c510 {Error Domain=NSCocoaErrorDomain Code=4099 "The connection to service created from an endpoint was invalidated from this process." UserInfo={AMSDescription=An unknown error occurred. Please try again., AMSURL=http://localhost:49913/WebObjects/MZBuy.woa/wa/inAppBuy, NSDebugDescription=The connection to service created from an endpoint was invalidated from this process., AMSStatusCode=200, AMSServerPayload={ "app-list" = ( Thx for any help : )

Hi, We are facing issue with purchases on iOS 26.4. The app store receipt received is from previous transaction leading to receipt validation failures. There are some purchase success observed for pending transactions but success rate for pending transactions is also very low. We are using Unity In-App Purchasing (IAP) 4.13.0. Let us know for any more details and any fix / workaround available. Thanks.

I’m working on a Flutter application that implements subscriptions using in-app purchases (IAP). I currently have two apps under the same developer account: One for staging One for production In App A (staging), I successfully created a monthly subscription with the product ID: rc_1299_monthly However, when I try to create a subscription with the same product ID (rc_1299_monthly) in App B (production), I encounter the following error: "The Product ID you entered is already being used by another subscription." My understanding was that product IDs are scoped per app, but this error suggests there may be account-level constraints. Has anyone encountered this before? Is it required to use unique product IDs across all apps under the same account, or is there a recommended approach for handling staging vs production setups? Any clarification or best practices would be appreciated.

iOS 26.4系统上，我们发现三个问题： 1.调用了finishTransaction接口，但是在App重新启动后，[SKPaymentQueue defaultQueue].transactions仍然会有这笔订单。 2.支付完成后，[[NSBundle mainBundle] appStoreReceiptURL]]，拿到的票据解析出来里面的商品是空的，需要延迟2秒钟左右在调用[[NSBundle mainBundle] appStoreReceiptURL]]才能获取有效票据。 3.支付完成后，如果用户没有点击最后弹出的确认弹框，等待5秒钟，系统会自己回调 - (void)paymentQueue:(SKPaymentQueue *)queue updatedTransactions:(NSArray<SKPaymentTransaction *> *)transactions; 代理方法。正常应该是用户点击了最后弹出的确认弹框，在回调- (void)paymentQueue:(SKPaymentQueue *)queue updatedTransactions:(NSArray<SKPaymentTransaction *> *)transactions;方法。 我们在苹果开发者论坛上面找到其他开发者反馈的类似问题，链接如下： https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/817700 https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/792437?answerId=849557022#849557022 https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/817834 https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/817706 https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/818586 我们有大量用户升级到了26.4系统，这对于我们造成了巨大的困扰，我们需要你们的帮助，感谢！

We're seeing some strange behavior of the appAccountToken when passing it to a purchase in the sandbox environment. Normally we'd expect the same account token to be set on the resulting verfication, but that's not the case. Instead the token seems to be persisted on the API side and reused for some amount of time, meaning there's a mismatch and the connection between account and purchase is lost. This happens consistently even if we send new tokens on each purchase. Has there been any updates to purchase flow in the sandbox environment on Apple's side? .purchase( options: [.appAccountToken(token)] )

We have been using the purchase date to identify the latest transaction_id for a given original_transaction_id. However, I’ve noticed several cases where an immediate upgrade does not result in a later purchase date—in some instances, it is actually earlier than the previous transaction. Given this inconsistency, would it be more reliable to sort by transaction_id in descending order instead?

Hello, I’m trying to understand which Apple subscription offer best fits a coupon-like flow in our app. Our ideal case is a 1-month Pro benefit that users can trigger inside the app: without entering a code manually possibly more than once over time then continue into a normal paid auto-renewable subscription Ideally, this would work for new, existing, and lapsed users, and if possible, even for users who are already actively subscribed (though that part is not required). From the docs, I understand that: Offer Codes require redemption Promotional Offers are for existing or previously subscribed users Introductory Offers are for new eligible users Win-Back Offers are for lapsed subscribers So my questions are: Is there any Apple-supported way to do this without manual code entry? Can the same user receive this kind of 1-month benefit multiple times over time? Which offer type is the closest fit? Is this use case partly incompatible with Apple’s subscription system? Thanks.

Hey We have noticed a change in the retry behavior of Apple Server Notifications webhooks V2 starting around March 12–13, 2026. Previously, when our webhook endpoint returned an HTTP 400 response, Apple would retry the notification delivery multiple times according to the documented retry policy. However, beginning around March 12–13, it appears that Apple no longer retries the webhook when a 400 response is returned. The notification is sent only once and no further retry attempts are made. From our understanding of the documentation, retries should occur when delivery fails, and historically we observed retries even for some 4xx responses. We would like to confirm: Has Apple recently changed the retry behavior for Server Notifications? Are HTTP 4xx responses (specifically 400) now considered terminal failures that will not trigger retries? Is this change intentional or related to a rollout in the webhook delivery system? We have called the "Notification History" endpoint for some users who purchased a sub and we are only getting one attempt with the following data in it: { attemptDate: 1773469202552, (2026-03-14T06:20:02.552Z) sendAttemptResult: 'UNSUCCESSFUL_HTTP_RESPONSE_CODE', } This was 2 days ago, based on the docs, the user should have a few attempts at least. This behavior change affects systems that rely on retries to handle temporary validation issues or transient failures. Thanks!

Hi, my app was rejected because IAP were not present in the app. I followed guidelines more carefully and filled all buisness detail since then. And now I have: StoreKit Configuration in XCode is set to None, Products (subscription + consumable product) are already approved (from the previous review) Paid Apps Agreement - active Bank account - active Tax forms - active Compliance - active Problems: When trying to test it with TestFlight + sandbox account, StoreKit is returning zero products. When trying to check my products by "initiate transaction" from Sandbox App Store manage dashboard I am getting an error "This item is not available" I am totally stuck and don't know what to process next. Unfortunately API.

Hello, I am investigating a case where two different transaction IDs appear to refer to the same purchase, and I would like clarification on whether this behavior is expected. Additional context StoreKit version: StoreKit 1 (SKPaymentTransaction) Environment: Production Product type: Auto-renewable subscription Transaction sources The values are obtained from the following APIs: transaction_id from SKPaymentTransaction https://developer.apple.com/documentation/storekit/skpaymentqueue receipt_data from the App Store receipt https://developer.apple.com/documentation/foundation/bundle/appstorereceipturl Observed behavior After an In-App Purchase completes, the app receives: a transaction_id from SKPaymentTransaction the corresponding receipt_data for the purchase When inspecting the receipt, the transaction_id inside latest_receipt_info differs from the transaction_id received directly from the purchase transaction. For clarity: A = transaction_id received from the purchase flow (SKPaymentTransaction) A' = transaction_id found in receipt_data.latest_receipt_info The two values are different, but they differ only by 1. Additional observation The original_transaction_id for A and A' is identical, which suggests that both transaction IDs belong to the same subscription purchase chain. Pattern observation on the ID difference We have observed that the difference between A and A' is consistently exactly 1 (i.e., A' = A + 1) across multiple transactions, not just a single case. This appears to be a reproducible pattern rather than a coincidence. This observation raises an additional question (Question 6 below). API verification When calling: GET /inApps/v1/transactions/{transactionId} Both A and A' return what appears to be the same purchase record. The response data is effectively identical except for the transactionId field. However, when calling: GET /inApps/v2/history/{transactionId} A does not appear in the transaction history only A' appears in the history response Questions If A does not appear in transaction history, where does this transaction ID originate from? Why does Get Transaction Info (/inApps/v1/transactions/{transactionId}) return a valid response for A even though it is not present in the transaction history? Why do A and A' both resolve to what appears to be the same purchase? In this situation, which transaction ID should be treated as the canonical transaction ID for server-side validation? Is this difference related to how StoreKit 1 (SKPaymentTransaction) and the App Store Server API represent transactions? Is the consistent off-by-one difference between the transaction_id from SKPaymentTransaction and the one recorded in latest_receipt_info an intentional behavior of StoreKit 1's internal transaction ID assignment? Specifically, we are wondering whether StoreKit 1 applies some form of internal offset when delivering the transaction ID to the client, while the App Store server records a different (adjacent) ID in the receipt. If so, is this documented anywhere? Note We are currently in the process of migrating to StoreKit 2, but this behavior was observed while investigating our existing StoreKit 1 implementation. Any clarification would help us better understand the correct transaction model during the migration.