Results of applying gherkinlint to the test definitions #180

DT, WG

Issue opened on 04/SEP, after initial checking done by Rafal Artych.
To be covered in the next MetaRelease track

Rafal indicates next steps regarding it is ongoing work in Commonalities and we can take advantage so far to make imporvements in tests definition. Pedro Díez García to check

16/OCT: Pedro is analyzing tests results, Conclusions will be reported in the issue. Maybe some feedback to be reported to Commonalities. Clear points will be addressed by means of new PR.

30/OCT: Only linter rule for filename.feature file is not working well (file may contain opearyionId and it is lowerCamelCase). For the rest, PR will be raised

https://github.com/camaraproject/CarrierBillingCheckOut/issues/161

STC

Clarifications provided and kingly asked to close it and follow Up on issue #179. Waiting for STC feedback

16/OCT: Checked to be moved to a discussion and set the issue closed after it.
30/OCT: Converted into discussion https://github.com/camaraproject/CarrierBillingCheckOut/discussions/189

https://github.com/camaraproject/CarrierBillingCheckOut/issues/179

STC

Resume Issue on 02/OCT meeting.

Agreed to address this consideration with a generic sentence that would be comfortable for everybody

15/OCT:
PR
https://github.com/camaraproject/CarrierBillingCheckOut/pull/183 triggered

Check whether there is a deadline for patch release within MetaRelease Fall24.
30/OCT: It is not observed any deadline in Guidelines to generate Patch version.Pedro Díez García will check with RM and proceed with patch release if so

https://github.com/camaraproject/CarrierBillingCheckOut/issues/114

STC

Resume Issue discussion. Talk about prioritization

WG Output:

• Kind request STC for business detailed information about this scenario.

• Check internally, for Operators interested on it to freely comment about prioritization of this feature

16/OCT: Waiting for more information from STC and see next steps
30/OCT: Set on hold until receiving further input

https://github.com/camaraproject/CarrierBillingCheckOut/issues/115

STC

Resume Issue discussion. Talk about prioritization

WG Output: Kind request to STC to open API Backlog request for this new functionality to check its consideration.

https://github.com/camaraproject/CarrierBillingCheckOut/issues/190

TEF Business (On Behalf of API Backlog WG)

Issue opened by TEF Business. API Backlog reference PR#94.

API Backlog would like to know as it is a functionality that affects an existing group, to have a validation checkpoint from the WG that this is a scope enhancement the WG want to accept, before approving it in the backlog and reviewing it in the TSC.

Key point for this issue is whether WG seems the functionality within WG scope to provide feedback.

TEF comments about intention is to have a separate functionality decoupled from Payment process.

Also indicates good to know the view in other Operators in order to have feedback from them

ORA indicates the funcionality may have sense in the scope of Carrier Billing. However it shows their worrying about this line eligibility function in terms of “privacy” (i.e. what is the message that this info “provides” to the 3rd party if the response is that te line is not eligible for the service, why it is not eligible so it may be understood as a line with any “weird” circunstance in the Operator). This topic has been also discussed in ORA in the past and it is seen as a functionality for “trusted partner”. So it would be helpful to me be more precise in the proposal in order to evalute evaluate it. Also comments initiatives like Credit Scoring or Device Data Volume also could manage this funcionality.

AoB

WG

Meetings Schedule. Agreed to have on 13:00 UTC (14:00 CET, 15:00 CEST). Pedro Díez García will manage meeting schedule update with LFX.
Already managed with LFX