Results of applying gherkinlint to the test definitions #180

DT, WG

CLOSED

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.

27/NOV: After some discussion within PR#191 about the workaround, it is agreed to use it and consider some rewording to skip linter topic. This PR will be part of Spring 25 scope. WG will wait some time in order to have commonalities work consolidated. If finally Commonalities work would not be consolidated, we could merge within Carrier Billing WG in order to move forward and have initial linting
12/DIC: Waiting fror commonalities output https://github.com/camaraproject/Commonalities/pull/292

08/ENE: @Pedro Díez García will align with current https://github.com/camaraproject/Commonalities/pull/292 status and comment Rafal and Ludovic for final review. Rafal will take care of moving forward commonalities work.

22/ENE: Work completed in Commonalities and PR https://github.com/camaraproject/CarrierBillingCheckOut/pull/191 is MERGED. Issue is closed

MetaRelease Spring 25 for Carrier Billing APIs · Issue #194 · camaraproject/CarrierBillingCheckOut

WG Management

ONGOING

27/NOV: Parent Issue to compile all the MetaRelease Spring 25 associated work for Carrier Billing APIs. Some child issues already created (will be mentioned in Minutes as far as we are progressing on it). Some “child” issues to be created within this week (New features and Testing).

12/DIC: Set of child issues created:

• Issue Carrier Billing API Release Trackers for MetaRelease Spring 25  #195

• Issue Carrier Billing APIs - Aligment with Commonalities and ICM MetaRelease Spring 25 Guidelines #196

• Issue Carrier Billing APIs - API Readiness Checklist for MetaRelease Spring 25  #197

• Issue Carrier Billing New functional Features for MetaRelease Spring 25 #199

• Issue Carrier Billing Testing Enhancements for MetaRelease Spring 25 #200

  • Latest topic to be addressed once API Specs have maturity enough

Next action will be focus on generating PR for addressing Issue #196. @Rafal Artych provided some input https://lf-camaraproject.atlassian.net/wiki/x/jIAQAw , in order to help API impacts identification. Expected for next week

08/ENE: Focus work durign this week on:

• Carrier Billing APIs - Aligment with Commonalities and ICM MetaRelease Spring 25 Guidelines #196

• Carrier Billing APIs - API Readiness Checklist for MetaRelease Spring 25  #197

22/ENE: PR Release r2.1 (Release Candidate) by PedroDiez · Pull Request #202 · camaraproject/CarrierBillingCheckOut for RC (M3) generated. Some updates will have to be managed based on updates in Commonalities
Rafal comments, based on suggestion from Herbert, we can wait for Commonalities RC release (r2.2) to align PR and not generate several Release Candidates, informing Release Management.

Carrier Billing API Release Trackers for MetaRelease Spring 25 · Issue #195 · camaraproject/CarrierBillingCheckOut

WG Management

ONGOING

22/ENE: No updates

Carrier Billing APIs - Aligment with Commonalities and ICM MetaRelease Spring 25 Guidelines · Issue #196 · camaraproject/CarrierBillingCheckOut

WG Management

ONGOING

08/ENE: Most priority topic. To be managed in 6th January week. Pedro will advise WG when PR triggered

22/ENE: Covered so far until Commonalities Release r2.1. Some updates to be done. Will follow the approach of generating PR aligned with Commonalities r2.2

Carrier Billing APIs - API Readiness Checklist for MetaRelease Spring 25 · Issue #197 · camaraproject/CarrierBillingCheckOut

WG Management

ONGOING

08/ENE: Second priority topic. To be managed hopefully during this week after PR for API Specs aligment triggered.

22/ENE: Covered in PR Release r2.1 (Release Candidate) by PedroDiez · Pull Request #202 · camaraproject/CarrierBillingCheckOut. Rafal comments he reminds to see some reference to commonalities and ICM in PR, just to take a llok into it for the PR

Carrier Billing New functional Features for MetaRelease Spring 25 · Issue #199 · camaraproject/CarrierBillingCheckOut

WG Management

ONGOING

08/ENE: In principle no new requirements for MetaRelease. Ludovic comments not sure whether we can close the topic so far. WG agrees on indicating a comment within the issue and effectively close on M4 milestone.

Carrier Billing Testing Enhancements for MetaRelease Spring 25 · Issue #200 · camaraproject/CarrierBillingCheckOut

WG Management

ONGOING

08/ENE: To be managed in the next week.

22/ENE: Covered in PR Release r2.1 (Release Candidate) by PedroDiez · Pull Request #202 · camaraproject/CarrierBillingCheckOut. To check whether some updates are required based in latest inputs in Commonalities

AoB

WG

Two points:

• DT (Rafal) comments about Telco Operator’s roadmap with Carrier Billing Implementation and also indicates about some possible issues to be commented within the WG related to DT implementation.

  • TEF is focused so far in Spain. Need to check with Business, in principle Payments will be managed with 1-STEP async procedure and it will be support for partial and total refunds.

• DT (Rafal) also reflects the relevance of opening new issues for the functionality evolution taht may be required by Telco Operators in order to move forward in the upcoming MetaRelease