Dt 740 #27
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ protected Stream<? extends ConformanceCheck> createSubChecks() { | |
| new CarrierBookingNotificationDataPayloadRequestConformanceCheck( | ||
| getMatchedExchangeUuid(), | ||
| BookingState.DECLINED, | ||
| dsp.amendedBookingStatus() != null ? BookingState.AMENDMENT_DECLINED : null | ||
| ), | ||
| ApiHeaderCheck.createNotificationCheck( | ||
| BookingRole::isCarrier, | ||
|
|
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -14,24 +14,24 @@ | |
|
|
||
| @Getter | ||
| @Slf4j | ||
| public class UC11_Shipper_CancelEntireBookingAction extends StateChangingBookingAction { | ||
| private final JsonSchemaValidator requestSchemaValidator; | ||
| private final JsonSchemaValidator responseSchemaValidator; | ||
|
|
||
| public UC11_Shipper_CancelEntireBookingAction( | ||
| String carrierPartyName, | ||
| String shipperPartyName, | ||
| BookingAction previousAction, | ||
| JsonSchemaValidator requestSchemaValidator, | ||
| JsonSchemaValidator responseSchemaValidator) { | ||
| super(shipperPartyName, carrierPartyName, previousAction, "UC11", 200); | ||
| this.requestSchemaValidator = requestSchemaValidator; | ||
| this.responseSchemaValidator = responseSchemaValidator; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Override | ||
| public String getHumanReadablePrompt() { | ||
| return ("UC11: Cancel an entire booking"); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Override | ||
|
|
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -6,26 +6,25 @@ | |
| import org.dcsa.conformance.core.check.*; | ||
| import org.dcsa.conformance.core.traffic.HttpMessageType; | ||
| import org.dcsa.conformance.standards.booking.checks.CarrierBookingNotificationDataPayloadRequestConformanceCheck; | ||
| import org.dcsa.conformance.standards.booking.party.BookingRole; | ||
| import org.dcsa.conformance.standards.booking.party.BookingState; | ||
|
|
||
| @Getter | ||
| public class UC12_Carrier_ConfirmBookingCompletedAction extends StateChangingBookingAction { | ||
| private final JsonSchemaValidator requestSchemaValidator; | ||
|
|
||
| public UC12_Carrier_ConfirmBookingCompletedAction( | ||
| String carrierPartyName, | ||
| String shipperPartyName, | ||
| BookingAction previousAction, | ||
| JsonSchemaValidator requestSchemaValidator) { | ||
| super(carrierPartyName, shipperPartyName, previousAction, "UC12", 204); | ||
| this.requestSchemaValidator = requestSchemaValidator; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Override | ||
| public String getHumanReadablePrompt() { | ||
| return ("UC12: Complete the booking request with CBR %s" | ||
| .formatted(getDspSupplier().get().carrierBookingReference())); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -42,14 +41,16 @@ public ConformanceCheck createCheck(String expectedApiVersion) { | |
| return new ConformanceCheck(getActionTitle()) { | ||
| @Override | ||
| protected Stream<? extends ConformanceCheck> createSubChecks() { | ||
| var dsp = getDspSupplier().get(); | ||
| return Stream.of( | ||
| new UrlPathCheck( | ||
| BookingRole::isCarrier, getMatchedExchangeUuid(), "/v2/booking-notifications"), | ||
| new ResponseStatusCheck( | ||
| BookingRole::isShipper, getMatchedExchangeUuid(), expectedStatus), | ||
| new CarrierBookingNotificationDataPayloadRequestConformanceCheck( | ||
| getMatchedExchangeUuid(), | ||
| BookingState.COMPLETED, | ||
| dsp.amendedBookingStatus() != null ? BookingState.AMENDMENT_CONFIRMED : null | ||
| ), | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. This does not look correct. It should be possible to end with a AMENDEDMENT that was declined/cancelled when reaching the There was a problem hiding this comment. Because we are not calling UC12 for amendment Declined or cancelled. https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVND1csI8=/ There was a problem hiding this comment. If a confirmed booking never has a grey state, then having line 53 is incorrect. Either way, the code is inconsistent by saying that if there is an amended status, it must be There was a problem hiding this comment. For me, this one is still "unanswered". I suspect it is because the scenarios do not cover the case of (as an example): There was a problem hiding this comment.
We call the UC8A and then go to UC12.. Hence I put that AmendedBookingStatus check. There was a problem hiding this comment. I get ur point. The amendedBookingStatus shouldnt be checked in the UC12. 👍 because the flow of confirmed amendment itself complete after UC8A . am I right ? There was a problem hiding this comment. Personally, I would expect the There was a problem hiding this comment. According to the miro board, UC12 shouldnt be having any AMENDMENT status. There was a problem hiding this comment. Please verify that assertion with Flavia. Sometimes the states can inherit the amendment/updated state even though it is not visible in the Miro board. (In eBL, after When discussing the scenario with Flavia, be sure to show an exceptional case where you could end up in UC12 with an amended state. Example: I hope she agrees with you, because then we can just "reset" the amendment state + content when doing UC12 and simplify the check here. But as said, please confirm with the PO. There was a problem hiding this comment. As discussed with internally, at UC12 we dont need to check the final AmendmentStatus for Booking. |
||
| ApiHeaderCheck.createNotificationCheck( | ||
| BookingRole::isCarrier, | ||
|
|
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ protected Stream<? extends ConformanceCheck> createSubChecks() { | |
| getNotificationChecks( | ||
| expectedApiVersion, | ||
| notificationSchemaValidator, | ||
| BookingState.UPDATE_RECEIVED, | ||
| null)); | ||
| } | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would replace this line with:
The noAction() is a stepping stone for enabling the
.thenHappyPathFromcall.