Align QoS B and QoS B&A with Commonalities r4.4

[Masa8106]

What type of PR is this?

• correction

What this PR does / why we need it:

To align QoS B and QoS B&A with Commonalities r4.4

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #151

Special notes for reviewers:

@gmuratk, in QoS B&A, I have removed an unused example "booking failure". Please check whether it is ok for you.

Changelog input

 release-note
  -align QoS B and QoS B&A with Commonalities r4.4

Additional documentation

None

[hdamker]

@Masa8106 I accidentally created #153 at the same time which is removing the component wrappers more broadly and addresses #152. The two PRs might conflict - but should be easy to resolve.

[hdamker]

Checked this PR against the open #153 and #139. Validation passes (0 errors, 0 warnings).

#153 (qos-booking.yaml): both PRs remove the Latitude / Longitude wrappers, and #153 also inlines PointList, Point and Device next to them. This causes a merge conflict in components/schemas. Resolution: take #153's side of that hunk; the additional-error-responses change here then merges cleanly. Whichever PR merges second needs a rebase.

#139 (qos-booking-and-assignment.yaml): the additional-error-responses fix in this PR is identical to the one in #139. The BOOKING_FAILURE example is handled differently:

• this PR removes it;
• Comprehensive Pull Request for Issues Identified during Release Review #139 keeps it, rewrites it with bookingStatus: TERMINATED, and references it from the createBooking 201 examples (its fix for Document deferred validation warning: unused BOOKING_FAILURE example in qos-booking-and-assignment.yaml #112 / [QoS Booking And Assignment] Defined example BOOKING_FAILURE is unused #121).

If this PR merges first, #139 would have to re-add the example during its rebase. If #139 merges first, the qos-booking-and-assignment.yaml part of this PR is redundant and conflicts.

Suggestion: keep this PR to qos-booking.yaml and let #139 handle qos-booking-and-assignment.yaml, or drop only the BOOKING_FAILURE removal here. @Masa8106, @gmuratk, does that work for you?

[hdamker]

Please see also my comment on #151 with the full scope of aligning with Commonalities r4.4.

[gmuratk]

@Masa8106 , Can we discuss the expected timeline for #139 merge? If this fix is required sooner than the merging of that PR than I will have to handle it later of course.

[Masa8106]

@gmuratk, sure. My preference is "#139 merges first". After that, I will resolve the redundant and conflicts in qos-booking-and-assignment.yaml part. What do you think?

[Masa8106]

Hi @gmuratk, I have merged #139. I have resoleved the conflict in this PR, especially reviving "Booking Failure example". And then, now this PR becomes only for QoS B. No influence to QoS B&A. Please check it. Thank you.

[gmuratk]

Thank you, @Masa8106 ,
I think the title of the PR suggests that after this PR QoS B&A will align with commonalities r4.4. If you update the title to be specific to QoS Booking only, then I can work on a separate PR for QoS B&A addressing applicable items listed in issue #151.