-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix base permissionConfig to match Pro and ePA variants (by removing it) #311
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Fix base permissionConfig to match Pro and ePA variants (by removing it) #311
Conversation
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.
The situation is slightly confusing. The permissionConfig.json
was not changed because it was used in gemProdT_TI-M_Client_ePA_PTV_1.0.0-0_V1.0.0 (via TI-M Basis 1.0.0). This release has since been discontinued, however. So I think we can just remove this file entirely on develop
.
I can do that. It is just confusing since TI-M Basis also references invite permissions and now there would be no schema for that. But it doesn't really matter to me either way :) |
1f7695f
to
6ff3b93
Compare
In gematik#259 domainExceptions was renamed to serverExceptions, but only in 2 of the 3 schemas. To avoid confusion remove the third schema, that isn't used in any active specifications anymore. Signed-off-by: Nicolas Werner <[email protected]>
6ff3b93
to
804d992
Compare
Is this file important in this context? |
Yes, like I said, it's very confusing. 🙈 The specs themselves don't give versions for the documents they reference. So TI-M Basis 1.0.0 references The only "Produkttypsteckbrief" that uses TI-M Basis 1.0.0 is gemProdT_TI-M_Client_ePA_PTV_1.0.0-0_V1.0.0 and this links to So it is possible to get to the old |
Err, yes I guess we can kill the examples, too, then. Good call. We're also about to kill |
Well, it is not getting to tedious, but it will probably be easier for you to change directly than me trying to catch up. So I will just close it and you fix it directly? :) |
Ok, yeah let me just handle it directly. I'll keep the PR open until then as a reminder. Thanks for surfacing the issue in any case! 🙏 |
Pull Request Details
Provide details about your pull request and what it adds, fixes, or changes.
In #259 domainExceptions was renamed to serverExceptions, but only in 2 of the 3 schemas. To avoid confusion update the third schema to match the others by removing it. It isn't referenced by any active specifications anymore.
Breaking Changes
Describe what features are broken by this pull request and why, if any.
<Content>
Issues Fixed
Enter the issue numbers resolved by this pull request below, if any.
<Content>
Other Relevant Information
Provide any other important details below.
This is potentially a breaking change? I don't know why there are 3 schemas and there might be an additional process to follow here, but I think the linked PR should help with that?