beckn / Unified-Energy-Interface

Adaptation of beckn protocol for energy sector
Other
16 stars 10 forks source link

Validating UEI Specification against the Beckn Core specification v 1.1.0, validating examples against the updated UEI specification #18

Open rajaneeshk90 opened 5 months ago

rajaneeshk90 commented 5 months ago

Issue:

There are some components of the UEI specification which are not as per the Beckn core specification version 1.1.0 One such issue is highlighted below.

As per the UEI specification, "city" field should be enclosed inside context.location object. Definition of the context in UEI specification can be found here: https://github.com/beckn/Unified-Energy-Interface/blob/main/api/dent.yaml#L2735 All the JSON examples in the UEI repository directly utilize the "city" field within the context. More details of the issue can be found on the GitHub issue page of UEI repository: https://github.com/beckn/Unified-Energy-Interface/issues/17

As part of this task, we checked the UEI spec and example JSONs for any non-compliance with Beckn core spec version 1.1.0 and fixed the identified issues.

Change Made

Related ticket: https://github.com/beckn/beckn-ui-workspace/issues/485

emmayank commented 4 months ago

Hey @rajaneeshk90 , Please find my comments on the pull request below :

  1. Search.intent has a location object which is not available in the core-v1.1 specification.
  2. /track and /on_track API is not available, which is part of the core-v1.1 specification.
  3. The examples that are defined in the YAML File (uei.yaml) are not as per the core-v1.1 specification.

I was hoping you could find the complete difference in the given comparison link (click here). Please make the required change and update the pull request.

Thanks @emmayank

rajaneeshk90 commented 3 months ago

Hi @emmayank

I have fixed the highlighted issues. Can you please review this PR.

There are more changes made to fix any non compliance in the UEI spec with the Beckn core specifications version 1.1.0.

Please let me know if any clarification is needed.

Thanks, Rajaneesh