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.
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: Sep 12, 2021 13:16
From: Guido d'Amico
Subject: Different definitions of AttachmentRefOrValue across TMF-662 and TMF-646?
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
Original Message:
Sent: Sep 12, 2021 08:02
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: Different definitions of AttachmentRefOrValue across TMF-662 and TMF-646?
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.
Original Message:
Sent: Aug 27, 2021 16:57
From: Guido d'Amico
Subject: Different definitions of AttachmentRefOrValue across TMF-662 and TMF-646?
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
------------------------------