Open APIs

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
------------------------------

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

Hello Natalia, Jonathan,

Thanks for the heads up. The information is missing in the the Conformance Profile. Specifications and documentation are aligned --> Please consider the swagger as the source of truth when gap (like Jonathan said we hope to be able to quickly generate part of the CP from swagger - like we did for the specification).
I log this defect in our internal API team project to correct it in future release.

Thanks.
Ludovic

------------------------------
Ludovic Robert
Orange
My answer are my own & don't represent necessarily my company or the TMF
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Feb 11, 2020 03:16
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: TMF637 - Product Inventory Management

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

Hi,
thank you both very much for the quick answer and clarification.

Regards!

------------------------------
Natalia Fabbro
Claro Argentina
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Feb 11, 2020 03:25
From: Ludovic Robert
Subject: TMF637 - Product Inventory Management

Hello Natalia, Jonathan,

Thanks for the heads up. The information is missing in the the Conformance Profile. Specifications and documentation are aligned --> Please consider the swagger as the source of truth when gap (like Jonathan said we hope to be able to quickly generate part of the CP from swagger - like we did for the specification).
I log this defect in our internal API team project to correct it in future release.

Thanks.
Ludovic

------------------------------
Ludovic Robert
Orange
My answer are my own & don't represent necessarily my company or the TMF
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: Feb 11, 2020 03:16
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: TMF637 - Product Inventory Management

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.