Re-design Use Case Participation page

[ybidois]

Overview

Explain the topic in 2 sentences

As Use Case credentials are managed differently, we need to re-design the Use Case Participation page.

What's the benefit?

Adapt the page to the "one credential to rule them all"

What are the Risks/Dependencies ?

• Ask SSI group if any changes planned for the credentials

Detailed explanation

Current implementation

• Display all use case credentials, even those which expired

Proposed improvements

• Review UI/UX of this page and remove it if necessary

Feature Team

Contributor

• UX/UI team Cofinity
• @ybidois
• @Usmanfee
• @JordanGerada3

Committer

User Stories

• Issue 1, linked to specific repository
• Issue 2, linked to another specific repository

Acceptance Criteria

• [ ] Criteria 1
• [ ] Criteria 2
• [ ] Criteria 3

Test Cases

Test Case 1

Steps

1. Do something
2. Click something
3. Add something

Expected Result

1. Expectation
2. Expectation
3. Expectation

Architectural Relevance

The following items are ensured (answer: yes) after this issue is implemented:

• [ ] This feature aligns with our current architectural guidelines
  • Data Sovereignty: All data sharing activities across company boundaries follow the Catena-X Regulatory Framework, in particular the Data Exchange Governance, and the Dataspace Protocol via a compliant Connector (like the tractusx-edc or similar, see Connector KIT)
  • [ ] CX-0010 Business Partner Number
  • [ ] CX-0013 Identity of Member Companies
  • [ ] CX-0018 Data Space Connectivity (EDC)
  • [ ] CX-0049 DID Document Schema
  • [ ] CX-0050 Framework Agreement Credential
  • [ ] CX-0149 Verified Company Identity
  • Interoperability: Digital Twins are used (compliant to the Digital Twin KIT and the Industry Core KIT)
  • [ ] CX-0001 EDC Discovery API
  • [ ] CX-0002 Digital Twins in Catena-X
  • [ ] CX-0018 Data Space Connectivity (EDC)
  • Data Format:
  • [ ] The data model is based on a published Semantic Model
• [ ] The impact on the overall system architecture has been assessed. The Feature does not require changes to the architecture or any existing standard? Please have a look here on the overarching architecture
• [ ] Potential risks or conflicts with existing architecture has been assessed

Justification: (Fill this out, if at least one of the checkboxes above cannot be ticked. Contact the Architecture Management Committee to get an approval for the justification)

Additional information

• [ ] I am aware that my request may not be developed if no developer can be found for it. I'll try to contribute a developer (bring your own developer)

[stephanbcbauer]

Some hints from Release Management (@ther3sa) and Tractus-X Project Lead (@stephanbcbauer)

• Status currently in Inbox. ⇾ Only features with status backlog are considered in open planning
• Please add missing sections from the feature template, or fill them out
• Please add contributor and committer

[evegufy]

Committers: @oyo @ntruchsess @Phil91 @evegufy

[stephanbcbauer]

@HFocken mentioned ⇾ please align on this feature with @DanielaWuensch (Data Souverignty) and @HFocken (Governanence) also @matbmoser would like to be involved