Prepare r3.1

[fernandopradocabrillo]

What type of PR is this?

Add one of the following kinds:

• subproject management

What this PR does / why we need it:

Preparations for Number Verification pre-release r3.1

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #192 #201

Special notes for reviewers:

Edit: Already included The issue #201 should also be covered in this version, it will be included in a future commit

[hdamker]

The issue #201 should also be covered in this version, it will be included in a future commit

Is this planed before or after this release PR for the rc.1?

[hdamker]

The PR is not listed above, so the "contributor" shouldn't be listed here ;-)

Suggested change

* @hdamker-bot made their first contribution in https://github.com/camaraproject/NumberVerification/pull/196

[fernandopradocabrillo]

The issue #201 should also be covered in this version, it will be included in a future commit

Is this planed before or after this release PR for the rc.1?

@hdamker before, I will upload the commit to include it in this PR

[bigludo7]

Look globally good for me with very small comments.

[hdamker]

@fernandopradocabrillo Please add the new template "# Additional CAMARA error responses" and consider to utilize the XCorrelator schema

[fernandopradocabrillo]

@fernandopradocabrillo Please add the new template "# Additional CAMARA error responses" and consider to utilize the XCorrelator schema

Thanks @hdamker. We already included it but this PR wasn't in sync with main. It should be all good now

[bigludo7]

Thanks Fernando

[hdamker]

We already included it but this PR wasn't in sync with main. It should be all good now

@fernandopradocabrillo indeed, now the validator script is happy: hdamker/ReleaseManagement#23 (comment)

[bigludo7]

Hello, @AxelNennker as codeowner and @hdamker as release management representative may I ask you final review & approval to close this one?

[hdamker]

Hello, @AxelNennker as codeowner and @hdamker as release management representative may I ask you final review & approval to close this one?

@bigludo7 as discussed: please review and merge #204 first, rebase the release PR with main and then update the version within the two test files. The improvements in #204 are definitely worth to take it into the release.

[hdamker]

Let me request the last remaining change, to avoid that the PR will accidentally be merged:

• the version and server URL in the test files is currently still "wip" and should be changed here in the PR (see my previous comment).

All other looks good from release management perspective.

[hdamker]

@fernandopradocabrillo please rebase with the updated test files and update their versions

[ECORMAC]

Hi Fernando,
Apologies for the late comment / observation, regarding issue #201, ICM has merged the following issue ("Add a section on operator token usage in authorization code flow #238") into their documentation where they show the use of operator token in the auth flow. Think its important that we also reference this option in our text.
Thanks,
Cormac

[fernandopradocabrillo]

Hi Fernando, Apologies for the late comment / observation, regarding issue #201, ICM has merged the following issue ("Add a section on operator token usage in authorization code flow #238") into their documentation where they show the use of operator token in the auth flow. Think its important that we also reference this option in our text. Thanks, Cormac

Hi @ECORMAC, sure no worries. Take a look at the number-verification.yaml file from this PR, around line 30 I have included a new text to reference the use of the new jwt-bearer with operator token to complement the already existing one for CIBA.
is this the PR you mean PR #238?

[bigludo7]

LGTM !

[hdamker]

Two tiny comments and all looks good from release management perspective.

[hdamker]

LGTM from release management perspective

[bigludo7]

LGTM

[ECORMAC]

Thanks Fernando, yes I checked the addition ("Or sends a JWT-Bearer token request...."), looks good.
However there may be one more option we should mention as a result of camaraproject/IdentityAndConsentManagement#238, something like, "or avail of the Authorization Code Flow (Frontend Flow) using Operator Token as referenced in xxx"

[fernandopradocabrillo]

Thanks Fernando, yes I checked the addition ("Or sends a JWT-Bearer token request...."), looks good. However there may be one more option we should mention as a result of camaraproject/IdentityAndConsentManagement#238, something like, "or avail of the Authorization Code Flow (Frontend Flow) using Operator Token as referenced in xxx"

but @ECORMAC, the use of Operator Token with AuthCode is not approved in ICM yet, is something still under discussion and definition, the issue itself is still open and Telefónica is not aligned with Axel's proposal

[ECORMAC]

@fernandopradocabrillo - ah Ok,I thought the PR (5) hd been approved and merged.