Feature/clear last update

[droslbl]

Greetings @wistefan

As for the lastUpdate feature, we all agreed that TMForum should be compliant to the original TMForum specification as you said in the last pull request.

With that said, I was requested to add a few things that are required:

• LastUpdate is a mandatory field for those entities that should have it, for this reason I added to fieldCleaningSerializer a condition that, for those entities that has the field, no matter what it should always return lastUpdate field along with id and href.

e.g. when querying with ?fields=none it always returns id and href but no lastUpdate. The condition checks if the field exist on the class and imposes it.

• There are 4 entities: partyRole, billingAccount, financialAccount, settlementAcount that does not include the field despite it being defined so in this PR we are adding those too.

Sources:
Account - https://tmf-open-api-table-documents.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/OpenApiTable/TMF666_Account/5.0.0/user_guides/TMF666_Account_userguide.pdf
Party Role - https://tmf-open-api-table-documents.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/OpenApiTable/TMF669_Party_Role/5.0.0/user_guides/TMF669_Party_Role_userguide.pdf

• Lastly we updated test for service-catalog and customer bill management as well as adding the required tests for the mentioned entities

If anything else is required please do tell me to solve it ASAP.

Best regards

[wistefan]

Hi @droslbl ,
sorry to say, but you are checking the wrong version of the Api. This is an implementation of the TMForum API v4.0. And in that, the lastUpdate does not exist for the mentioned entities. While I´m open for PRs that do an update to 5.0, we cannot mix both versions.

[droslbl]

Hi @wistefan

Apologizes, I'll check version 4 and ammend the branch accordingly

Best regards

[droslbl]

After checking the API, finally we are removing lastUpdate from the entities, only keeping the logic for the field to appear if its defined in the API
Apologizes for the confusion

[droslbl]

Hi @wistefan

I finished the changes, with this it should be compliant to version 4, again sorry for my confusion earlier.