Release Review: NumberVerification r4.1 (rc Sync26)

[camara-release-automation]

Release Review: r4.1 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
number-verification	2.1.1-rc.2	rc	2.1.0

Dependencies: Commonalities r4.4, 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 r4.1 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: r4.1-baeb5e4

[camara-validation]

CAMARA Validation — PASS

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

View full results

[tanjadegroot]

Thanks @bigludo7 ! All set.

/LGTM

[AxelNennker]

Should the number be 2.2 instead of 2.1.1?
I think that adding the single-use requirement might be some work for people who have not implemented it

[tanjadegroot]

Should the number be 2.2 instead of 2.1.1? I think that adding the single-use requirement might be some work for people who have not implemented it

Per the discussion in today's Release Management meeting, this was a documentation update of already expected behaviour, so could be considered a patch. Up to the team.

[bigludo7]

@AxelNennker @tanjadegroot From my view preference to keep 2.1.1 instead of 2.2 if technically this is not a must. We have 2.1 implementations live or in progress in many operators and I’m a bit uncomfortable to introduce a new version that could create confusion.
Adding TEF team to hear from them (@jgarciahospital @fernandopradocabrillo )

[tanjadegroot]

Hi team, any opposing views from the team to going forward with this release ? if not, codeowners, please approve and proceed to merge and publication for M3

[bigludo7]

LGTM as discussed with Axel & Herbert

[hdamker]

/LGTM ... will merge it and create the release.