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

13/NOV: PR https://github.com/camaraproject/CarrierBillingCheckOut/pull/191 generated to cover this issue

Linter configuration working well. Some points commented into Commonalities Track. Specific point considered into this WG due to the fact there is an endpoint named validatePayment.

There is a linter rule raising an error with logical operator “<=”. It seems to work fine with “>=”.
Pedro Díez García will show a workaround within the PR and Rafal Artych will check internally with Dev team anycase just in case a solution can be found.

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

13/NOV: Checked with RM and no dedaline is for a patch version so we could move forward

Agreed to move forward with this PR. It will be merged at the end of this week and patch release PR will be generated afterwards (next week). Rafal Artych highlights to check RM rules for patch release and Ludovic Robert to ping him just in case as not able to attend next meeting.

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

STC

30/OCT: Set to on-hold until receiving further input (more information from STC and evaluate next steps). 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

Agreed by WG: If no updates for next meeting will not be considered for next MetaRelease

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

STC

30/OCT: Set to on-hold

WG Output: Kind request to STC to open API Backlog request for this new functionality to check its consideration.
If not prioritized by API Backlog will not be considered for the next Metarelease

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 be more precise in the proposal in order to evaluate it. Also comments initiatives like Credit Scoring or Device Data Volume also could manage this funcionality.

13/NOV: Pedro comments need to have more input form business to move forward on this topic

AoB

WG

Discussed about the inclusion of Carrier Billing APIs into the next MetaRelease. WG agrees on doing that. Pedro Díez García to generate new registry in API Release tracker