Geofencing feature file

[mdomale]

Geofencing feature file

What type of PR is this?

Add one of the following kinds:

• tests

What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR is required for consideration of Feature file for Geofencing which includes all possible test scenarios

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

No specific issue available currently

Fixes #211

Special notes for reviewers:

Feature file with test scenarios

Changelog input

 release-note

Additional documentation

This section can be blank.

docs

[mdomale]

@akoshunyadi @shilpa-padgaonkar @hdamker FYI

[jlurien]

Please @mdomale, edit the template with the right values

[mdomale]

@jlurien Added required details .Please let me know in case any further details are anticipated

[mdomale]

Updated

[jlurien]

@bigludo7, @maxl2287 please take a look at the PR and provide your comments. I'm worried about the maturity of this test plan for the meta. A basic one is enough but it should be understandable and aligned with the guidelines.

[bigludo7]

@bigludo7, @maxl2287 please take a look at the PR and provide your comments. I'm worried about the maturity of this test plan for the meta. A basic one is enough but it should be understandable and aligned with the guidelines.

I'm sharing your concern. We have also a same situation in device status and to be honest I did yesterday sim swap subscription test plan and I'm not sure my contribution is fully aligned with our guideline as notification is trickier to describe.

I'm wondering if, given the short delay, we should adopt a quick resolution:

1. Add a caveat for subscription based test plan to indicated it as draft assets
2. Only fix 'breaking' issue (before end of next week) - hope @mdomale can help us here.
3. Make one generic test template for subscription in commonalities (after meta release) - we trigger an issue for this and we can work on this.
4. Align all subscriptions api based accordingly to this 'template'

adding @hdamker in the loop.

[mdomale]

@jlurien @bigludo7 Will have look and fix required issues and update asap

[jlurien]

@jlurien @bigludo7 Will have look and fix required issues and update asap

You can take a look to the PR for QoD Test plans, which is quite enhanced for a complex API like QoD, with several endpoints and events. It is not explicit subscriptions API but implicit, but we can take some ideas from there. IMO, for geofencing it would work better to have a feature file per API operation

[jlurien]

@bigludo7, @maxl2287 please take a look at the PR and provide your comments. I'm worried about the maturity of this test plan for the meta. A basic one is enough but it should be understandable and aligned with the guidelines.

I'm sharing your concern. We have also a same situation in device status and to be honest I did yesterday sim swap subscription test plan and I'm not sure my contribution is fully aligned with our guideline as notification is trickier to describe.

I'm wondering if, given the short delay, we should adopt a quick resolution:

1. Add a caveat for subscription based test plan to indicated it as draft assets
2. Only fix 'breaking' issue (before end of next week) - hope @mdomale can help us here.
3. Make one generic test template for subscription in commonalities (after meta release) - we trigger an issue for this and we can work on this.
4. Align all subscriptions api based accordingly to this 'template'

adding @hdamker in the loop.

Yes, we'll have to adopt a decision due to the time constraints. IMO it is better to have nothing than having something that is wrong.

[akoshunyadi]

I think the goal for Fall24 should be to have a basic coverage of the API, in the right format and conform with the guideline. For that I think it's enough to have 1 feature file / API.

[jlurien]

I think the goal for Fall24 should be to have a basic coverage of the API, in the right format and conform with the guideline. For that I think it's enough to have 1 feature file / API.

Yes, having one file is OK, but it has to make sense and cover all operations. This PR is copying parts of other test plans that were designed for APIs with just one operation (location verification or retrieval), and, for example, the Background section will not work for as it is for several operations as each operation has a different path.

[mdomale]

@jlurien @bigludo7 PR updated with required changes cc @akoshunyadi

[mdomale]

@jlurien @bigludo7 PR updated with above suggestion cc @akoshunyadi