Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Question - an optional reservartion part for an already purchased ticket #528

Closed
haghi82 opened this issue Apr 29, 2024 · 12 comments · Fixed by #653
Closed

Question - an optional reservartion part for an already purchased ticket #528

haghi82 opened this issue Apr 29, 2024 · 12 comments · Fixed by #653
Assignees
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation question Further information is requested
Milestone

Comments

@haghi82
Copy link

haghi82 commented Apr 29, 2024

How to use the OSDM flow for the case where the purchaser wants to add an optional reservartion part for an already purchased ticket (especially of the multiride type) and, in addition, the carrier (distributor) requires control number of the reservations issued for admission? In such a situation, should a new bookingId be generated (if so, how can the fulfillmentID be transferred to the journey) or is there a way to add reservation parts to the booking in a FULFILLED state?

@jspetrak
Copy link
Collaborator

Hello @haghi82 this is something we have just made more clear in the documentation. The basic solution is to a new offer request for reservation only, and book it in a separate booking. However, distributors may support to add new offers to an existing booking, even one that already has all parts fulfilled. Please see https://osdm.io/spec/processes/#AddPartsToABookings

@jspetrak jspetrak moved this to In progress in OSDM Specification Apr 29, 2024
@jspetrak jspetrak modified the milestone: 3.3.0 Apr 29, 2024
@jspetrak jspetrak added question Further information is requested documentation Improvements or additions to documentation labels Apr 29, 2024
@haghi82
Copy link
Author

haghi82 commented Apr 29, 2024

Thanks for the response. According to the basic solution, is it possible to provide a reference to the primary booking or to the fulfilmentId, which includes a previously purchased admission?

@jspetrak
Copy link
Collaborator

The basic/general solution doesn't have any interlink between the already existing admission and newly requested reservation. In fact, in the optional solution, there isn't a exact link between ADM and RES either. They are only put into the same booking.

There is also possibility to provide a reference to an existing (multi-ride) ticket via AnonymousPassengerSpecification.card with TravelAccountType but that was never designed for single ride tickets and linkong them with separately booked reservations.

I would suggest to bring it as a feature gap to the Friday Technical Group so it can be analysed, other carriers/deistributors/vendor provide they current solutions and if not covered by the current specification, we can figure out an improvement.

@Azurab
Copy link

Azurab commented Apr 30, 2024

Hi, thanks for your instant reply.
So, we need to have strong statement that using POST /bookings/{bookingId}/booked-offers/ resource is valid for bookingId in CONFIRMED or FULFILLED state — it is important for PKP implementation. Is it necessary to make the technical group be sure about this?

@jspetrak
Copy link
Collaborator

jspetrak commented Apr 30, 2024

Booking doesn't have a state, only its parts. So the openapi allows to add new parts even after first set of parts was all confirmed and fulfilled. The only exception is when a distributor explicitely disallow this.

tl;dr Unless PKPIC explicitely forbids it in its own implementation, it will be able to add new parts as second purchase to already purchased and paid booking.

@Azurab
Copy link

Azurab commented May 2, 2024

Booking doesn't have a state, only its parts.

I think Bookings Data Model should be updated though (btw. in "possible states" description it is also a mistake: CONFIRMED state is called "booked").

@jspetrak
Copy link
Collaborator

jspetrak commented May 2, 2024

@Azurab Well, the booking status was actually removed from the API model. It can still be present internally in each inventory system but API doesn't disclose it for simplicity - for the same reason why the specification doesn't forbid or enforce ability to make secondary addition of new parts to already completed booking.

Please, could you point where did you find "booked" state so we can review it on the Friday Technical Group Call? Thank you.

@jspetrak jspetrak moved this from In progress to To do in OSDM Specification May 2, 2024
@jspetrak jspetrak added this to the 3.3.0 milestone May 2, 2024
@CGantert345
Copy link
Contributor

TODO: update documentation in chaptermodel: Add Chapter BookingPartState Model and indicate in BookingStateModel that there is no booking State model. Clemens

@CGantert345 CGantert345 moved this from To do to In progress in OSDM Specification May 3, 2024
@jspetrak jspetrak moved this from In progress to Done in OSDM Specification May 3, 2024
@Azurab
Copy link

Azurab commented May 6, 2024

Please, could you point where did you find "booked" state so we can review it on the Friday Technical Group Call? Thank you.

Hi, e.g. https://osdm.io/images/models/bookings-data-model.png (comment on Booking resource).

@jspetrak
Copy link
Collaborator

jspetrak commented May 6, 2024

@Azurab Thank you. This UML must be redrawn since it doesn't correspond to the current openapi specification. So far, we have adjusted the textual workding on the Models page to indicate there isn't a state on Booking.

@jspetrak jspetrak moved this from Done to In progress in OSDM Specification May 6, 2024
@jspetrak
Copy link
Collaborator

TODO - Split Models page to State Models and Object Models.

@CGantert345
Copy link
Contributor

CGantert345 commented Jun 13, 2024

additional reservation (or ancillaries) are allowed also in confirmed booking state. This is an optional feature.

@CGantert345 CGantert345 modified the milestones: 3.3.0, 3.4.0 Jun 13, 2024
@jspetrak jspetrak linked a pull request Aug 14, 2024 that will close this issue
CGantert345 added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 15, 2024
…-model-page

#528 Separate model and state model pages
@CGantert345 CGantert345 moved this from In progress to Done in OSDM Specification Aug 16, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation question Further information is requested
Projects
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants