Pre-release r1.1 for Fall25 m3 milestone

[jpengar]

What type of PR is this?

• repository management

What this PR does / why we need it:

• creates the API readiness checklist
• creates and adds section for r1.1 to the changelog
• update README.md
• PENDING updates the versions and server URLs in API and test definition files -> UPDATE (08/07): done.
• PENDING updates the API spec according to CAMARA ICM r3.2 and CAMARA Commonalities r3.2. -> UPDATE (08/07): done.
• PENDING adds basic test definitions (NOTE: This may need to wait until public release) -> UPDATE (30/06): I have created issue API Test Definitions for Fall25 #29 to include API test definitions, as well as PR API test definitions #30 to address this. -> UPDATE (08/07): Test definitions are ready.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #24

Special notes for reviewers:

The PR is set to 'DRAFT' for the time being, until PRs #20 and #22 have been resolved. CC @subha5h. This is also a dependency for test definitions (#29 & #30). -> UPDATE (08/07): Considering the time restrictions we are currently facing to generate the first API pre-release on time (M3 milestone). We leave #20 out of the first pre-release, but we will review and polish it definitively before the final public release. #22 is merged.

Changelog input

 Pre-release r1.1 for Fall25 m3 milestone

Additional documentation

N/A

[github-actions]

🦙 MegaLinter status: ✅ SUCCESS

Descriptor	Linter	Files	Fixed	Errors	Elapsed time
✅ ACTION	actionlint	2		0	0.03s
✅ OPENAPI	spectral	1		0	1.59s
✅ REPOSITORY	git_diff	yes		no	0.0s
✅ REPOSITORY	secretlint	yes		no	0.68s
✅ YAML	yamllint	1		0	0.38s

See detailed report in MegaLinter reports

MegaLinter is graciously provided by

[hdamker]

• PENDING adds basic test definitions (NOTE: This may need to wait until public release)

Please try to add them still as soon as possible ... if possible before the creation of the release candidate. They are mandatory to give implementations of the rc some test cases at hand.

[hdamker]

@jpengar Just seen now: why r3.1? It's the very first release in this repository, so you should start with r1.1

[jpengar]

• PENDING adds basic test definitions (NOTE: This may need to wait until public release)

Please try to add them still as soon as possible ... if possible before the creation of the release candidate. They are mandatory to give implementations of the rc some test cases at hand.

I would love to, but first we need to finalise the API design, particularly the content of the API response, in order to properly define the test scenarios 😕

[jpengar]

@jpengar Just seen now: why r3.1? It's the very first release in this repository, so you should start with r1.1

My bad. I'll fix it.

[jpengar]

@hdamker

@jpengar Just seen now: why r3.1? It's the very first release in this repository, so you should start with r1.1

Fixed in 9c87002

Please try to add them still as soon as possible ... if possible before the creation of the release candidate. They are mandatory to give implementations of the rc some test cases at hand.

I've added the API Test Cases in 5bef1f7 but I will better move it to another independent PR just in case.

[diegogonmar]

LGTM

[hdamker]

@jpengar Great that this PR is ready for review!

A few minor and easy to fix issues found in the API and test definition files:

---

The externalDocs object is missing
Add:

externalDocs:
  description: Product documentation at CAMARA
  url: https://github.com/camaraproject/ConsentInfo

---

Location: info.version
Issue: Version is "v0.1.0-rc.1" but should not have "v" prefix
Fix: Change to "0.1.0-rc.1"

---

Location: components.responses.Generic401
Issue: Message lacks "A new authentication is required" as required by Commonalities 0.6
Current: "Request not authenticated due to missing, invalid, or expired credentials."
Fix: Update to: "Request not authenticated due to missing, invalid, or expired credentials. A new authentication is required."

---

Location: Test file name
Issue: File named consent-info-verifyStatus.feature but operation is retrieveStatus
Fix: Rename to either:

consent-info.feature (recommended for single operation API)
consent-info-retrieveStatus.feature (if following operation-specific naming)

---

Info Object - Title should not include 'API': Consent Info API

[hdamker]

And the minor points within the remaining files

[jpengar]

@jpengar Great that this PR is ready for review!

A few minor and easy to fix issues found in the API and test definition files:

@hdamker "Haste makes waste." 😓. Thank you for the detailed review. Hopefully, I have addressed all your comments and suggestions in 1987f9c

[hdamker]

Hopefully, I have addressed all your comments and suggestions in 1987f9c

@jpengar looks good on first glance, I will come back later for a final review. At least our robot is now happy (but has only partial coverage):

🔴 Critical: 0
🟡 Medium: 0
🔵 Low: 0

[jpengar]

@hdamker I'm afraid I'll be out of office next week. I apologise for bothering you, as I know you're very busy at the moment. Do you think we could finalise the review of this PR to generate the release before I leave? I just want to avoid any problems as I am the PR owner.

[hdamker]

@hdamker I'm afraid I'll be out of office next week. I apologise for bothering you, as I know you're very busy at the moment. Do you think we could finalise the review of this PR to generate the release before I leave? I just want to avoid any problems as I am the PR owner.

I don't think that there will be further comments from me and ReleaseManagement side. So if there are the approvals from the other codeowners they can also merge it.

[hdamker]

LGTM from ReleaseManagement perspective.

[jpengar]

@hdamker I'm afraid I'll be out of office next week. I apologise for bothering you, as I know you're very busy at the moment. Do you think we could finalise the review of this PR to generate the release before I leave? I just want to avoid any problems as I am the PR owner.

I don't think that there will be further comments from me and ReleaseManagement side. So if there are the approvals from the other codeowners they can also merge it.

Could you please review this, @sebdewet or @AxelNennker, so I can merge it and create the pre-release?

[sebdewet]

LGTM