Open APIs

Expand all | Collapse all

TMF671 Question regarding validFor dates

  • 1.  TMF671 Question regarding validFor dates

    TM Forum Member
    Posted 17 days ago
    Hello everyone,

    We're looking for clarification regarding valid for dates in Promotion API. They are present on both Promotion and Promotion Patter, but there is no statement which of these dates are primary and which are secondary. Should we consider validFor dates on upper Promotion level as main ones and treat closed ones as closure of entire Promotion with all Promotion Patterns?

    TY in advance.

    ------------------------------
    Boris Khatkov
    Lead Solution Architect, R&D
    Netcracker Technology
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: TMF671 Question regarding validFor dates

    TM Forum Member
    Posted 16 days ago
    Hello Boris
    My understanding is the following... the validFor at Promotion Pattern is used to limit in time a condition (to get the promotion) or a benefit to the promotion. The validFor at promotion level is a validity period of the promotion itself.

    Probably, for consistency PromotionPattern.validFor.startDate should not be before promotion.validFor.startDate and PromotionPattern.validFor.endDate should not be after promotion.validFor.endDate.

    Perhaps @Lara Silva or @Florin Tene as API leader could complete :)

    Hope it helps

    Ludovic
    ​​

    ------------------------------
    Ludovic Robert
    Orange
    My answer are my own & don't represent necessarily my company or the TMF
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: TMF671 Question regarding validFor dates

    TM Forum Member
    Posted 13 days ago
    Hi,

    Thank you for the reply. I think this is more or less clear. What I don't understand is necessity of those on both entities especially consider how tightly they bound to each other. I mean what if all conditions are expired but promotion is still available. Should I check presence of valid patterns when showing promos in the channel, for example? And isn't that way too heavy?

    ------------------------------
    Boris Khatkov
    Lead Solution Architect, R&D
    Netcracker Technology
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: TMF671 Question regarding validFor dates

    TM Forum Member
    Posted 12 days ago
    Hello Boris,
    For me, it is an implementation choice... If your promotion are not changing  - you define once the promotion, condition, benefit and not change them - then I got your point and probably not necessary to add validFor for the promotion pattern.
    But if your promotion and in particular condition to get them are a bit more changing then it makes sense to have this validFor I guess... and you have to check them each time.

    Ludovic

    ------------------------------
    Ludovic Robert
    Orange
    My answer are my own & don't represent necessarily my company or the TMF
    ------------------------------