- What is nafiswatsiq/subbase-payment used for?
- It is a Laravel package intended to add subscription payments to an application, covering recurring billing, payment workflows, and plan management. It aims to provide a foundation so you do not have to build payment handling from scratch. The published evaluation notes that gateway delegation, schema ownership, and multi-tenant support are not established from the release artifacts alone.
- How do I install nafiswatsiq/subbase-payment in Laravel?
- Install it with Composer in a Laravel application, then follow the package's service provider and publish steps for configuration and any migrations. The evaluation describes this as the conventional Laravel package path: Composer install, config and migration publishing, and service provider registration. Verify the exact commands against the repository because no detailed install guide was included in the release context.
- Which Laravel and PHP versions does subbase-payment support?
- The context does not state a supported Laravel or PHP version matrix for v1.3.0, so treat that as a gating check. Minor releases in payment packages often move framework floors, so confirm compatibility for your Laravel LTS and PHP version before adopting. Do not assume support from the package name or semver alone.
- Does subbase-payment handle recurring billing and plan management?
- The package is described as providing a foundation for recurring billing, payment workflows, and plan management. Whether it owns the subscription state machine or delegates to a gateway such as Stripe or Paddle is not confirmed in the available context. Confirm those responsibilities before relying on it for production billing.
- What changed in v1.3.0 of subbase-payment?
- The v1.3.0 release is a minor bump from v1.2.1, but the only published artifact is an auto-generated compare link with no changelog body, migration notes, or deprecation list. The evaluation recommends reading the actual commit diff for v1.2.1 to v1.3.0 rather than relying on the release page. Payment minor bumps can carry behavior changes in rounding, proration, retries, or gateway payloads.
- Does this package ship migrations and models for subscriptions?
- The available context does not establish whether the package ships its own migrations and models or operates against your existing users and subscriptions tables. That distinction matters because package-owned billing schema increases migration and upgrade coupling. Verify the schema ownership before integrating it into a primary billing path.
- How do I test subbase-payment with a gateway sandbox?
- The context does not document a test story, so confirm whether the package ships tests against a mocked gateway or a sandbox. A reasonable evaluation approach is a shadow integration in a non-production branch using gateway sandbox credentials. Run scenarios such as create, upgrade with proration, cancel-at-period-end, failed-payment dunning, and refund.
- Is subbase-payment safe for production billing?
- The evaluation does not classify v1.3.0 as safe or breaking from published notes alone, and it flags an unreadable release delta and single-maintainer concentration as risks. It recommends not adopting the package into the primary billing path until the diff, schema ownership, gateway version, and idempotency model are verified. Treat production use as unverified rather than approved.
- How do I migrate away from subbase-payment later?
- There is no documented exit path in the context; the key question is how much billing state would live in the package's schema versus your own. If the package owns subscription tables, migration cost compounds with each release. Plan a reversibility review before adoption and keep critical billing state under your control where possible.
- What are alternatives to subbase-payment for Laravel subscriptions?
- The context does not name specific alternatives, but common Laravel subscription options include Cashier for Stripe or Paddle and building a thin billing layer over a gateway SDK. Compare them on schema ownership, gateway abstraction, test support, and maintenance risk. The same evaluation criteria apply: release documentation, maintainer concentration, and reversibility.