Closed bigludo7 closed 2 weeks ago
Descriptor | Linter | Files | Fixed | Errors | Elapsed time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
✅ ACTION | actionlint | 2 | 0 | 0.03s | |
✅ OPENAPI | spectral | 1 | 0 | 1.68s | |
✅ REPOSITORY | git_diff | yes | no | 0.01s | |
✅ REPOSITORY | secretlint | yes | no | 0.7s | |
✅ YAML | yamllint | 1 | 0 | 0.33s |
See detailed report in MegaLinter reports
Line 1 of the feature file is Feature: CAMARA OTPvalidationAPI, v:wip
- should be updated
Line 1 of the feature file is
Feature: CAMARA OTPvalidationAPI, v:wip
- should be updated
Fixed ! Thanks
Please replace the text underneath the Readiness checklist table with the latest version from https://github.com/camaraproject/ReleaseManagement/blob/main/documentation/API-Readiness-Checklist.md
As also mentioned in https://github.com/camaraproject/Commonalities/issues/266#issuecomment-2305056979
So far what I've seen, rest LGTM. Please add @camaraproject/release-management_maintainers as reviewer to trigger the official review by Release Management and remove me as reviewer.
So far what I've seen, rest LGTM. Please add @camaraproject/release-management_maintainers as reviewer to trigger the official review by Release Management and remove me as reviewer.
Thanks a lot for Herbert for the very helpful review!
@bigludo7 @fernandopradocabrillo Could you please check if the comment in https://github.com/camaraproject/IdentityAndConsentManagement/issues/189#issuecomment-2298677455 is relevant for the API spec?
@bigludo7 @fernandopradocabrillo Could you please check if the comment in camaraproject/IdentityAndConsentManagement#189 (comment) is relevant for the API spec?
For me, and understood that @jpengar has same conclusion, the 403 INVALID_TOKEN_CONTEXT error is not relevant for the OTP validation API as if the phone number is in the token the API is useless. Indeed this API UC is to be use when we cannot detect the phone number by ourselves. But perhaps i miss something.
For me, and understood that @jpengar has same conclusion, the 403 INVALID_TOKEN_CONTEXT error is not relevant for the OTP validation API as if the phone number is in the token the API is useless. Indeed this API UC is to be use when we cannot detect the phone number by ourselves. But perhaps i miss something.
All good for me, I just wanted to be sure that the conclusion of @jpenpar is shared here.
.feature file - change of 36 lines needed:
/one-time-password-sms/v0/send-code
-> /one-time-password-sms/v1/send-code
/one-time-password-sms/v0/validate-code
-> /one-time-password-sms/v1/validate-code
@hdamker Managed the test statement in the checklist.
What type of PR is this?
Add one of the following kinds:
What this PR does / why we need it:
Related to #58
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for reviewers:
In the changelog I've added the elements from the v0.5.0 that were missing. Missing link for Test Statement
Changelog input
Additional documentation
This section can be blank.