Enhancements for Carrier Billing v0.2 - Part I

[PedroDiez]

What type of PR is this?

Add one of the following kinds:

• enhancement/feature
• documentation

What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR deals with some Issues whose output is already agreed:

• Issue#97 [COVERED]
• Issue#105 [COVERED: Impacts in amount and taxAmount]
• Issue#106 [COVERED: Inspired in /documentation/API_documentation/Carrier_Billing_API.md and aligned with current model approach for QoD and Home Devices QoD APIs. Providing details about state transitions -in the current context, without considerations of Issue#116]
• Issue#107 [COVERED]
• Issue#108 [COVERED]
• Issue#112 [COVERED]

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #97, #105, #106, #107, #108, #112

Special notes for reviewers:

COMPLETED. Ready for review

[bigludo7]

Thanks @PedroDiez I saw the fixes for 107 & 108 - Looks good for me. Do you want me to approve or wait for the other issue inside this PR to be solved? Thanks

[PedroDiez]

Hi @bigludo7, Many thanks for the review!. I wanted to add these ones in advance as were easy to manage. I prefer waiting for final review until i include the rest of points.

[PedroDiez]

Ready for review: @bigludo7, @rartych, @alabajnaid

[PedroDiez]

Current API Design Guidelines states that X-Correlator header is not Required in OAS Definition. Some clarifications are currently proposed in camaraproject/Commonalities#88

BTW, X-Correlator or x-correlator or more popular header: X-Correlation-ID ?

Hi Rafał,

Regarding the fact of not indicating the header in the yaml is not a good approach, because there is no contingency to inform consumers that they can use the header. Consumers do NOT have to know the CAMARA API Design guidelines. Then, for the time being I prefer to keep the "x-correlator" header (HTTP headers are case insensitive). I have already commented in commonalities for alignment