Commonalities r4.4 alignment by GillesInnov35 · Pull Request #66 · camaraproject/KnowYourCustomerAgeVerification

GillesInnov35 · 2026-09-28T13:30:44Z

Updated references to error responses in the KYC age verification API specification to point to the correct components in CAMARA_common.yaml.

What type of PR is this?

Add one of the following kinds:

correction

What this PR does / why we need it:

Commonalities r4.4 alignment

[P-027] info.description template 'additional-error-responses' has drifted from canonical at paragraph 3
The Generic* responses below are DEPRECATED as of Commonalities 0.9.0
update Test_definitions/kyc-age-verification.feature with 403 and 429 tests features

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #67

Updated references to error responses in the KYC age verification API specification to point to the correct components in CAMARA_common.yaml.

camara-validation · 2026-09-28T13:31:55Z

CAMARA Validation — PASS

0 errors, 0 warnings, 6 hints | Profile: standard

View full results

Removed various error response definitions from the KYC age verification API specification, retaining only the 'not_available' enum value.

PedroDiez

LGTM for API Spec, minor coments on tests file (editorial aligment)

PedroDiez · 2026-09-29T13:25:18Z

Align 401 tests naming and wording with https://github.com/camaraproject/Commonalities/blob/r4.4/artifacts/testing/sample-service-template.feature

PedroDiez · 2026-09-29T13:26:39Z

Align 400 tests naming and wording with https://github.com/camaraproject/Commonalities/blob/r4.4/artifacts/testing/sample-service-template.feature#L175

PedroDiez · 2026-09-29T13:41:37Z

Minor aligment with Commonalities r4.4: https://github.com/camaraproject/Commonalities/blob/r4.4/artifacts/testing/C02-phoneNumber-errors.feature#L33

Removed redundant examples for required_property in age verification tests.

GillesInnov35 · 2026-09-30T12:23:50Z

@PedroDiez , could review file changes in kyc-age-verification.feature. Scenarios should be now aligned on Commonalities r4.4 tests scenarios. Thanks

PedroDiez

LGTM

PedroDiez · 2026-09-30T14:59:19Z

+    And the response property "$.message" contains a user friendly text
+
+  @kyc-age-verification_verifyAge_403.02_api_client_token_mismatch
+  Scenario: "/verify" not created by the API client given in the access token


NOTE: This can be for WG decision, replace /verify by verifyAge (May be done later in case commented by RM)

thanks a lot @PedroDiez ,
verifyAge is the operationId not the resource name. In test scenario_template {resource} must be replaced by the API resource which is consumed is /verify, isn't it ?

To me is fine, just in case that comment would happen later, it will be no problem from our side

fernandopradocabrillo

LGTM

GillesInnov35 · 2026-10-01T08:57:42Z

@ToshiWakayama-KDDI , could you review this PR. Thanks a lot

PedroDiez · 2026-10-02T13:56:47Z

    And the header "Content-Type" is set to "application/json"
    And the header "Authorization" is set to a valid access token
-    And the header "x-correlator" complies with the schema at "#/components/schemas/XCorrelator"
+    And the header "x-correlator" complies with the schema at "../common/CAMARA_common.yaml#/components/headers/x-correlator"


This update is not needed.
In the API spec, the reference points to the local CAMARA_common.yaml copy, which is to avoid to change that reference it in case it would be updated (that is the changes are sync via updates of that local copy of commonalities)

When API bundling is performed via RM automation flow, that process makes auto-contained schemas so that the current value is valid

E.g.: beea6d0#diff-4f60699f4df741649c2f019e6dfc6a14b77505217d549bac1ad9fe156f5194c5R161

ToshiWakayama-KDDI · 2026-10-09T05:23:41Z

Thanks, @GillesInnov35 , @PedroDiez , @fernandopradocabrillo .

Really sorry for the delayed comments, but I have some comments and questions.

Regarding 404 IDENTIFIER_NOT_FOUND, by my reading of the CAMARA_common.yaml, there seems to be the following difference:

[current] message: The phone number provided is not associated with a customer account
[modified] message: The identifier is not found.

Won't this cause any problem?

ToshiWakayama-KDDI · 2026-10-09T05:30:20Z

Regarding 422 errors, by my reading of the CAMARA_common.yaml, there seem to be the following differences:

422 SERVICE_NOT_APPLICABLE

[current] message: The service is not applicable for the provided phone number
[modified] The service is not available for the provided identifier.

422 MISSING_IDENTIFIER

[current] message: No phone number has been provided
[modified] The phone number cannot be identified

422 UNNECESSARY_IDENTIFIER

[current] message: An explicit phone number has been provided when one is already associated with the access token
[modified] The phone number is already identified by the access token.

Won't these cause any problem? WDYT?

ToshiWakayama-KDDI · 2026-10-09T05:52:02Z

Hi @GillesInnov35, @PedroDiez , @fernandopradocabrillo

Regarding 429 errors, by my reading of the CAMARA_common.yaml, there seem to be the following difference:

[current] 429 QUOTA_EXCEEDED is defined.
[modified] 429 QUOTA_EXCEEDED is not defined.

In the latest CAMARA_common.yaml, in Line 624~ TooManyRequests429 is defined, and TOO_MANY_REQUEST is included, but QUOTA_EXCEEDED is not included.

However, in Line 1417~ GENERIC_429_TOO_MANY_REQUESTS is defined, and below, in Line 1423~, GENERIC_429_QUOTA_EXCEEDED is defined as well. It seems that GENERIC_429_QUOTA_EXCEEDED is not refered to, even though it is defined in Line 1423~. I don't know why.

I think simply we could add QUOTA_EXCEEDED into TooManyRequests429 (in Line 624~), which can refer to GENERIC_429_QUOTA_EXCEEDED. I mean we could modify the CAMARA_common.yaml, though.

WDYT?

ToshiWakayama-KDDI · 2026-10-09T05:55:09Z

Hi @GillesInnov35 , @PedroDiez , @fernandopradocabrillo ,

The proposed modification for '[P-027] info.description template 'additional-error-responses' has drifted from canonical at paragraph 3 ' looks good to me.

I am going to look at the test part. Sorry for the delayed action.

Best regards,
Toshi

ToshiWakayama-KDDI · 2026-10-09T07:53:50Z

Hi @GillesInnov35 ,

Merci beaucoup de the test case modification proposal.

May I ask one quick question?
There are many changes from 'When the HTTP “POST” request is sent' to 'When the request “verifyAge” is sent'. Are these because of one of the Commpnalities r4.4 changes?

Thanks,
Toshi

GillesInnov35 · 2026-10-09T08:04:00Z

May I ask one quick question? There are many changes from 'When the HTTP “POST” ' to 'When the request “verifyAge” is sent'. Are these because of one of the Commpnalities r4.4 changes?

Yes Toshi, changes proposal (replace "When the HTTP “POST” request is sent) are aligned on what has been included in Commonalities r4.4. I think they are not mandatory but to avoid any issues it could be interesting to include those changes.

PedroDiez · 2026-10-09T08:09:13Z

Hi @ToshiWakayama-KDDI,

cc @GillesInnov35

About the API Specification topics:

404 IDENTIFIER_NOT_FOUND. Its schema is aligned with the Commonalities r4.4. https://github.com/camaraproject/KnowYourCustomerAgeVerification/blob/main/code/common/CAMARA_common.yaml#L1289. So it reads the canonical message. message is not normative, so it is just the canonical reference, an implementation could send other message. So no problem at all.
422 errors. Its schema is aligned with the Commonalities r4.4. https://github.com/camaraproject/KnowYourCustomerAgeVerification/blob/main/code/common/CAMARA_common.yaml#L595. So basically, same situation as above
Really, the applicable 429 code is only TOO_MANY_REQUEST. 429 - QUOTA_EXCEEDED is not applicable in this API. This is being aligned across all KYC family APIs

GillesInnov35 · 2026-10-09T08:29:16Z

Regarding 404 IDENTIFIER_NOT_FOUND, by my reading of the CAMARA_common.yaml, there seems to be the following difference:

[current] message: The phone number provided is not associated with a customer account

[modified] message: The identifier is not found.

Won't this cause any problem?

I understood that these changes were intended to standardize error messages, particularly those related to the phone number and access token. I didn't see any way to put a local message if we include the CAMARA_common reference. As it is only message I think this is not a problem.
@PedroDiez , @rartych , WDYT ?

PedroDiez · 2026-10-09T09:00:27Z

Regarding 404 IDENTIFIER_NOT_FOUND, by my reading of the CAMARA_common.yaml, there seems to be the following difference:

[current] message: The phone number provided is not associated with a customer account

[modified] message: The identifier is not found.

Won't this cause any problem?

I understood that these changes were intended to standardize error messages, particularly those related to the phone number and access token. I didn't see any way to put a local message if we include the CAMARA_common reference. As it is only message I think this is not a problem. @PedroDiez , @rartych , WDYT ?

Not a problem at all to use CAMARA_common reference, Gilles

Commonalities r4.4 alignment

d24d739

Updated references to error responses in the KYC age verification API specification to point to the correct components in CAMARA_common.yaml.

GillesInnov35 requested review from ToshiWakayama-KDDI and fernandopradocabrillo as code owners September 28, 2026 13:30

GillesInnov35 added 3 commits September 28, 2026 15:34

Clean up error responses in KYC age verification API

1359121

Removed various error response definitions from the KYC age verification API specification, retaining only the 'not_available' enum value.

Add error handling scenarios for age verification

40584f7

Refactor KYC age verification scenarios for clarity

52d3041

PedroDiez reviewed Sep 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

GillesInnov35 added 5 commits September 29, 2026 15:41

Rename scenario tags for age verification tests

6629add

Change HTTP request to 'verifyAge' in feature file

9e67eed

Update ageThreshold property in feature file

38894b9

Remove unnecessary examples from KYC age verification tests

a1aa44a

Removed redundant examples for required_property in age verification tests.

Refactor KYC age verification scenarios for clarity

e0b2ae4

PedroDiez approved these changes Sep 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

fernandopradocabrillo previously approved these changes Sep 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Update error code from 401 to 400 in feature file

0b15988

GillesInnov35 dismissed fernandopradocabrillo’s stale review via 0b15988 October 1, 2026 12:59

Update x-correlator schema reference in feature file

7051b08

PedroDiez reviewed Oct 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

Update x-correlator header schema reference

2194f40

fernandopradocabrillo self-requested a review October 5, 2026 07:21

fernandopradocabrillo approved these changes Oct 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

Conversation

GillesInnov35 commented Sep 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Uh oh!

camara-validation Bot commented Sep 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

CAMARA Validation — PASS

Uh oh!

PedroDiez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

GillesInnov35 commented Sep 30, 2026

Uh oh!

PedroDiez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fernandopradocabrillo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

GillesInnov35 commented Oct 1, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ToshiWakayama-KDDI commented Oct 9, 2026

Uh oh!

ToshiWakayama-KDDI commented Oct 9, 2026

Uh oh!

ToshiWakayama-KDDI commented Oct 9, 2026

Uh oh!

ToshiWakayama-KDDI commented Oct 9, 2026

Uh oh!

ToshiWakayama-KDDI commented Oct 9, 2026

Uh oh!

GillesInnov35 commented Oct 9, 2026

Uh oh!

PedroDiez commented Oct 9, 2026

Uh oh!

GillesInnov35 commented Oct 9, 2026

Uh oh!

PedroDiez commented Oct 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

GillesInnov35 commented Sep 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading

camara-validation Bot commented Sep 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading