Hi Natalia
Thanks for your help in bringing this to our attention.
In my opinion, validFor is critical as part of a ProductTerm (it indicates the commitment period, if the term is a time-based commitment), so it looks like a documentation defect.
@Ludovic Robert for your attention.
We are piloting some new tooling that will allow us to generate the skeleton for the conformance profile automatically from the Swagger file, so that this type of problem will hopefully become less common in the future.
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: Feb 10, 2020 11:37
From: Natalia Fabbro
Subject: TMF637 - Product Inventory Management
Hi,
I have a question about TMF637 - Product Inventory Management
in v 19.0.1 (the latest aproved i've found) there is a diference between Specification and Comformance files:
Accourding to TMF637_Product_Inventory_Management_API_REST_Specification_R19.0.1 the ProductTerm sub-resource has a "ValidFor" field.
but in TMF637B_Product_Inventory_Conformance_Profile_R19.0.1 there is no mention of that field
which one of these is the correct one?
ProductTerm should have "ValidFor"?
thanks, regards!
------------------------------
Natalia Fabbro
Claro Argentina
------------------------------