Open APIs

 View Only
  • 1.  TMF641 - An error in the Usage Sample

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Jan 24, 2023 08:39
      |   view attached
    Hi Team,

    I see the error in one usage sample of TMF641.
    Request
    POST /tmf-api/serviceOrdering/v4/serviceOrder
    Content-Type: application/json
    
    {
        "externalId": "BSS748",
        "priority": "1",
        "description": "Service order description",
        "category": "TMF resource illustration",
        "requestedStartDate": "2020-08-27T09:37:40.508Z",
        "requestedCompletionDate": "2020-08-27T09:37:40.508Z",
        "@type": "ServiceOrder",
        "serviceOrderItem": [
    		{
                "id": "1",
                "action": "add",
                "@type": "ServiceOrderItem",
                "service": {
                    "serviceState": "active",
                    "type": "CFS",
                    "serviceCharacteristic": [
    					{
                            "name": "vCPE",
    

    The error is that "service" entity does not have such a "serviceState" field. The "service" entity has the "state" field.



    ------------------------------
    Yurii Yushchak
    System Manager
    Ericsson Inc.
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: TMF641 - An error in the Usage Sample

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Jan 30, 2023 05:03
    Thanks Yurii for raising this problem. I've created a JIRA issue for correction. I doubt that it will be done in v4 of the API, but hopefully in v5.
    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.
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: TMF641 - An error in the Usage Sample

    Posted Dec 19, 2023 01:57
    Edited by Dan d'Albuquerque Dec 19, 2023 02:17

    Hi Jonathan,

    Has any update been made on this issue?  I see that Ludovic refers to the service.serviceState field (in numerous discussions on the community) as the 'requested service state'.  This is not the same as the state field in the inventory which is the current state.  I think that the serviceState field is referred to only in the examples of the service orders and is missing from the schema.  I noticed it is missing from both v4 and v5 APIs (and service.state is not present either).  Was any progress made on the JIRA that you raised earlier?

    My preference would be to add service.state field to TMF641 schema/example as discussed by Yurii above.

    Thanks!

    Edited: Just noticed AP-4241 has been approved to correct TMF641 to use service.state (as the requested state).

    ------------------------------
    Dan d'Albuquerque
    Individual
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: TMF641 - An error in the Usage Sample

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Dec 19, 2023 07:16

    I'm not responsible for TMF641, so I don't have visibility as to the planned corrections. I'll raise it with the API lead.



    ------------------------------
    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: TMF641 - An error in the Usage Sample

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Dec 21, 2023 17:37

    Hi,

    This example issue ("serviceState" : "active") has been fixed in TMF641 v5 ("state":"active"). The 'service' schema under 'serviceOrderItem' is the same schema as defined in TMF638. In most cases, we don't need to specify the target service state in serviceOrderItem.service when adding a service to the order (serviceOrderItem.action=add) the default target service state will be considered as active. However, if we place an order to add a service with another target state like 'designed' we can specify the service state in the POST request of the order.

    Regards,

    Kamal



    ------------------------------
    Kamal Maghsoudlou
    Ericsson Inc.
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: TMF641 - An error in the Usage Sample

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Dec 22, 2023 02:50

    Should we not make that explicit then?  Adding the default keyword to the schema would specify that when state attribute was missing it's value is "active".

    {
        "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
        "$id": "ServiceStateType.schema.json",
        "title": "ServiceStateType",
        "definitions": {
            "ServiceStateType": {
                "$id": "#ServiceStateType",
                "type": "string",
                "description": "Valid values for the lifecycle state of the service",
                "enum": [
                    "feasibilityChecked",
                    "designed",
                    "reserved",
                    "inactive",
                    "active",
                    "terminated",
                    "suspended"
                ],
                "default": "active"
            }
        }
    }



    ------------------------------
    Vance Shipley
    SigScale
    ------------------------------