Release Review: DedicatedNetworks r2.2 (rc Sync26)

[camara-release-automation]

Release Review: r2.2 rc

This PR finalizes the reviewable release content for the active snapshot.

Edit and review this PR before merging it into the release snapshot. After Codeowner and Release Management approval, merging this PR creates the draft release.

Release contents

API	Version	Status	Comparison target
dedicated-network-accesses	0.2.0-rc.1	rc	0.1.0
dedicated-network-profiles	0.2.0-rc.1	rc	0.1.0
dedicated-network	0.2.0-rc.1	rc	0.1.0
dedicated-network-areas	0.1.0-rc.1	rc	N/A

Dependencies: Commonalities r4.3, ICM r4.2

Codeowner Actions

Tick each box once done. Ticking the last box — "The release is ready for Release Management review" — starts the Release Management review.

• Update the CHANGELOG

  What to do:

  • Copy all API-consumer-relevant changes from the provided list into the appropriate Breaking changes / Added / Changed / Fixed / Removed sections for each API. List breaking changes both in Breaking changes and in their normal change category.
  • Do not copy administrative, tooling-only, or internal maintenance changes unless they affect API consumers.
  • For each API, fill the CHANGELOG against the stated comparison target, following the release-type rules at the top of the CHANGELOG.

• Document deferred validation warnings (and hints)

  What to do:

  • Check the CAMARA Validation comment on this PR for warnings and hints.
  • For each warning you do not fix, document it in an issue: include a copy of the validation summary line(s) and the reason the fix is deferred.
  • Document in the same way any validation hint that is applicable to the API and needs to be fixed later.
  • You may group several findings into one issue or split them across issues — either is fine.
  • List the documenting issue(s) in a comment on this PR.
  • Note: documenting deferred warnings is optional but recommended for alpha pre-releases, and mandatory for rc pre-releases and public releases.

• The release is ready for Release Management review

  Check that:

  • All mandatory release assets for the declared status(es) are present (see the table below "Required release assets per API status" by expanding the arrow);
  • API documentation and test cases are adequate for the target status.

  Tick this box to confirm readiness and to start the Release Management review.

Release Management Actions

The following actions and checks are done by a Release Management reviewer before approving the PR:

• Assign the Release Management reviewer(s) as assignee(s) of this PR
• CHANGELOG follows the release documentation rules
• Breaking changes are documented and version updates follow SemVer rules
• Mandatory release assets are present for each API according to its status
• All remaining validation warnings are documented in issues and the reasons for deferral are defensible
• Content findings needing a main PR are collected as sub-issues of one issue titled Release r2.2 review findings (see Recording review findings)

Required release assets per API status

Nr	Asset	alpha	rc	initial public	stable public
1	Release Plan	M	M	M	M
2	API Definition(s)	M	M	M	M
3	Commonalities compliance	O	M	M	M
4	API Documentation	M	M	M	M
5	User Stories	O	O	O	M
6	Test Cases (basic)	O	M	M	M
7	Test Cases (enhanced)	O	O	O	M
8	API Description	O	O	M	M

M = Mandatory, O = Optional — Full documentation

Valid next actions for codeowners

• Merge this PR when all Codeowner Actions and Release Management Actions are complete and the required approvals are present — creates the draft release
• Use /discard-snapshot <reason> in the Release Issue to discard this snapshot, return to planned, and update content on main

---

Snapshot: r2.2-b2c4573

[camara-validation]

CAMARA Validation — PASS (with warnings)

0 errors, 27 warnings, 10 hints | Profile: standard

View full results

Warnings MUST be documented in one or more issues before this release — see the Codeowner Actions in the PR description.

[tlohmar]

I added a note to the accesses API: "A rc.2 release-candidate version will be available soon." (see)

[tanjadegroot]

Hi @tlohmar : can you please check the 27 warnings on duplicate test scenario names ? ([G-008] Scenario name is already used) - these need to be fixed before release.

It seems you repeat the same error scenario (e.g. "Scenario: Invalid x-correlator header" for each operation (POST, PUT, GET, DELETE), while only one scenario could be sufficient if the error response is identical an all 4 cases.

If you want to distinghuish between the four error cases, you would need to change the scenario name accordingly.

NOTE: please remember to tick the "Ready for Release Management review" when you are ready.

[tlohmar]

@tanjadegroot I reviewed the test cases against the API Testing guidelines. I have not seen the warnings.

Two observations, when checking the warnings:

• The API Testing guideline only require unique tags (i.e. @<(mandatory)feature_identifier>_<...) and there is no mentioning of unique Scenario names. Seems that the verification is doing more than the Guidelines.
  • I trigger the creation of another snapshot, having unique scenario slogan. Would then also push for an issue in Commonalities to align the Testing Guidelines with the verifications.
• A bit similar on the Error Cases: Yes, there are test cases like "invalid x-correlator" or "invalid access tokens" for each operation on each end-point, since these Error Codes are explicitly listed for each of those. The mentioning of the "Main Error Cases" in the API Readiness Checklist (Link) and the API Testing Guideline (link), are a bit different/unclear. Maybe I took a too extreme interpretation of the statement "All errors explicitly documented in the API spec must be covered by one or more dedicated error scenarios."

[hdamker]

@tanjadegroot I reviewed the test cases against the API Testing guidelines. I have not seen the warnings.

Two observations, when checking the warnings:

• The API Testing guideline only require unique tags (i.e. @<(mandatory)feature_identifier>_<...) and there is no mentioning of unique Scenario names. Seems that the verification is doing more than the Guidelines.

The linting rules are agreed within Commonalities and this specific one is in place since September 2024 for good reason, see my comment on your Commonalities issue. There is no value to repeat every single agreed Spectral or Gherkin rule within the Guidelines.

• A bit similar on the Error Cases: Yes, there are test cases like "invalid x-correlator" or "invalid access tokens" for each operation on each end-point, since these Error Codes are explicitly listed for each of those. The mentioning of the "Main Error Cases" in the API Readiness Checklist (Link) and the API Testing Guideline (link), are a bit different/unclear. Maybe I took a too extreme interpretation of the statement "All errors explicitly documented in the API spec must be covered by one or more dedicated error scenarios."

Your interpretation is fully correct - keep your coverage.