Fixes #73

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.87%. Comparing base (089961c) to head (4e53b41).
Report is 112 commits behind head on master.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #80      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.79%   88.87%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          23       23              
  Lines        3035     3056      +21     
==========================================
+ Hits         2695     2716      +21     
  Misses        340      340              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

A special container object is probably the cleanest solution? I'm not totally sure either, though.

This is a super useful PR, it would be nice to see this eventually included.
One suggestion though.
My observation is that, in case there are really no transactions, because the card is so new,
or the get_credit_card_transactions call is limited to a timeframe in which there were, no transactions,
then these placeholder fields:

    _unknown_2 = DataElementField(type='an')
    _unknown_3 = DataElementField(type='an')

are also missing not just the transactions field,
so one gets a warning:

fints/parser.py:163: FinTSParserWarning: Ignoring parser error and returning generic object: Required field DIKKU2._unknown_2 was not present. Turn off robust_mode to see Exception.

And then not even, the otherwise available balance field gets parsed, which would be nice to have in many scenarios,
like when there were no transactions in the queried period, but the balance is still a relevant value.

So I would suggest to go with:

   _unknown_2 = DataElementField(type='an', required=False)                                                                                                                          
   _unknown_3 = DataElementField(type='an', required=False)

This has been working well for me so far.

I can also confirm that these changes work very well with Sparkasse.

Is there any chance this could be merged?

There are two blockers currently:

• I have not tested it yet, and I have neither a comdirect nor Sparkasse credit card
• There is an open question about API design mentioned above that will be hard to change after the fact

• I have not tested it yet, and I have neither a comdirect nor Sparkasse credit card

I might be able to help with that. Let me know if that's even needed.

• I have not tested it yet, and I have neither a comdirect nor Sparkasse credit card

I might be able to help with that. Let me know if that's even needed.

I can only second that. Happy to help as well.

I don't think the patches may break anything as they only parse some fields which are not being parsed, yet.