Open APIs

Expand all | Collapse all

Different definitions of AttachmentRefOrValue across TMF-662 and TMF-646?

  • 1.  Different definitions of AttachmentRefOrValue across TMF-662 and TMF-646?

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Aug 28, 2021 12:04
    Edited by Marlon Almazan Aug 30, 2021 11:03
    I noticed that the way the sub-resource AttachmentRefOrValue is defined in the Appointment and several other specs (e.g.,  Catalog Management, or Product Catalog Management) is different, mainly because in the Appointment one there is no content field.

    Maybe I am being naïve, but how can you be passing by value an attachment if you do not have a content field with the actual attachment?

    Guido


    ------------------------------
    Guido d'Amico
    Salesforce
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Different definitions of AttachmentRefOrValue across TMF-662 and TMF-646?

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Sep 12, 2021 08:02
    Hi Guido
    Apologies for the delay in answering.
    The "official" schema for Attachment has two attributes that represent the content of the attachment:
    • content - the actual binary contents embedded as base64-encoded
    • url - points to the content in some management system for document or content 
    Presumably one or the other, but not both, would be populated.
    It's possible that some of the specs you refer to were generated with previous versions of Attachment that were missing the content attribute.
    Hope it helps

    ------------------------------
    Jonathan Goldberg
    Amdocs Management Limited
    Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: Different definitions of AttachmentRefOrValue across TMF-662 and TMF-646?

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Sep 12, 2021 13:17
    Thanks for the reply Jonathan,
    that was my assumption as well, but I wanted to make sure it was indeed the case.

    I suppose that the documentation in TMF 646 then should get the content field added: how does the community usually handle this type of situations? I there a bug/to-do tracking mechanism I can use to track this issue?

    Thank you,
    Guido

    ------------------------------
    Guido d'Amico
    Salesforce
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: Different definitions of AttachmentRefOrValue across TMF-662 and TMF-646?

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Sep 12, 2021 14:16
    For TMF 662 Entity Catalog, there's a new swagger available in the Early Adoption API table here. The attachment there does indeed have the content attribute.
    For TMF646 Appointment, the swagger in the main API table also has the content attribute, so I don't think a JIRA issue is needed.

    ------------------------------
    Jonathan Goldberg
    Amdocs Management Limited
    Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.
    ------------------------------