Open APIs

Expand all | Collapse all

TMF666 billingCycleSpecification resource vs TMF678 Bill Cycle Specification resource

  • 1.  TMF666 billingCycleSpecification resource vs TMF678 Bill Cycle Specification resource

    TM Forum Member
    Posted 19 days ago
    Hi ,
      I have following query for these 2 API : Are these duplicate ?
      I am of view this resource belong to TMF666 and not to TMF678. TMF 678 should just refer to this in TMF666.?

    Operation

    TMF666_Account_Management_API_REST_Specification_R19.0.0.pdf

    Resource : BILLING CYCLE SPECIFICATION RESOURCE

    TMF678_Customer_Bill_Management_API_User_Guide_v4.0.0.pdf

    Resource: Bill Cycle Specification resource

    List

    GET /billingCycleSpecification?fields=...&{filtering}

    GET /billCycleSpecification?fields=...&{filtering}

    Retrieve

    GET /billingCycleSpecification/{id}?fields=...&{filtering}

    GET /billCycleSpecification/{id}?fields=...&{filtering}

    Create

    POST /billingCycleSpecification

     

    Patch

    PATCH /billingCycleSpecification/{id}

     

    Delete

    DELETE /billingCycleSpecification/{id}

     



    ------------------------------
    Prakash Ranjan
    Infosys- Tech Architect
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: TMF666 billingCycleSpecification resource vs TMF678 Bill Cycle Specification resource

    TM Forum Member
    Posted 18 days ago
    Hi Prakash
    You appear to be correct, it doesn't make sense for two different APIs to "own" the billing cycle specification, even if it is read-only in one of the APIs.
    I have opened a defect report for this.
    Thanks for your alertness.

    ------------------------------
    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: TMF666 billingCycleSpecification resource vs TMF678 Bill Cycle Specification resource

    TM Forum Member
    Posted 17 days ago
    Thanks Jonathan ,
    Would wait for the defect resolution

    ------------------------------
    Prakash Ranjan
    Infosys
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: TMF666 billingCycleSpecification resource vs TMF678 Bill Cycle Specification resource

    TM Forum Member
    Posted 16 days ago
    We discussed it internally. The plan is to keep the cycle spec as a managed entity in TMF666 Account Management (with all the operations), and to remove the explicit GET from TMF678 Bill Management. Since this is a compatibility breaking change, it will not be done in the current version 4.x, we'll have to wait until v5.

    ------------------------------
    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.
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: TMF666 billingCycleSpecification resource vs TMF678 Bill Cycle Specification resource

    TM Forum Member
    Posted 13 days ago
    Thanks Jonathan,
    Good to get see quick turn around for this with decision on the roadmap.


    ------------------------------
    Prakash Ranjan
    Infosys-Technology Architect
    ------------------------------