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.
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: Feb 08, 2021 01:41
From: Prakash Ranjan
Subject: TMF666 billingCycleSpecification resource vs TMF678 Bill Cycle Specification resource
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
------------------------------