592 intent proposal create interaction

[pauldyson]

Closes #592

[linux-foundation-easycla[bot]]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• :white_check_mark: login: milindchidrawar (9f6294f982416f93fba8b5826f6dde482b89918f, 6accbc1f3ed4f9ddf34406cc9b7b9dd2c2c34e3e, 10f1e44a65b2cf343bd615918dd5fb46c0fe1cbc)
• :white_check_mark: login: pauldyson / name: Paul Dyson (d74f4077e816f72ac2b1645deac62ab6c40e0d1c)

[netlify[bot]]

✅ Deploy Preview for lambent-kulfi-cf51a7 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	a3c3f2f6719f5556a9fddc7a3d9e5686a50d4361
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/lambent-kulfi-cf51a7/deploys/637c75aff6e9870008552940
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-747--lambent-kulfi-cf51a7.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings.

[pauldyson]

@kriswest @mistryvinay the PR build is failing because we reference TimeRange (as discussed at the last working group) and whilst it is documented, the TS definition appears to be missing. I'm happy to add it but I'm assuming it should be in master rather than this branch.

[mistryvinay]

@kriswest @mistryvinay the PR build is failing because we reference TimeRange (as discussed at the last working group) and whilst it is documented, the TS definition appears to be missing. I'm happy to add it but I'm assuming it should be in master rather than this branch.

Hi @pauldyson i think the issue you are seeing is because of this https://github.com/finos/FDC3/pull/724/files#r881622916 will let @kriswest comment if this is correct.

[Yannick-Malins]

should this be called "record interaction"? reading through the PR code I got the impression that this was a generic way to start an interaction through various channels. but discussing with the domain experts it's more a case of recording an existing interaction to CRM or similar?

[kriswest]

@Yannick-Symphony I believe it's Create as in CRUD. It's following the naming conventions at https://fdc3.finos.org/docs/next/intents/spec#intent-name-prefixes (although looks like we went off-piste with 'Get' rather than 'Retrieve'.

Note that intents also have display names (although there is a slight problem with them as each app defines them #312 - it hasn't been high on the list to solve however so is still open).

[kriswest]

@pauldyson @milindchidrawar could you resolve conflicts - when you push it'll re-run the checks and should pass now.

[kriswest]

Added suggestions for alphabetical order corrections, couldn't do them all unfortunately. If you do them here you can then merge this into your other PR #761 OR you can rebase that PR off master to remove this one's changes from it (technically better as it makes them independent and the diffs are nicer - however I think both will go in at around same time).

[mistryvinay]

hi @kriswest I also have this PR which is awaiting approval by @milindchidrawar @pauldyson to resolve some of the above. https://github.com/singletracksystems/FDC3/pull/7

[milindchidrawar]

Hi @kriswest @mistryvinay many thanks for the feedback. I will be working through these updates ahead of our next working group meeting and will let you know if I have any questions.

[kriswest]

@milindchidrawar don't forget to take a look at VInay's PR into this branch and resolve conflicts with master. It should then build ok.

[pierreneu]

Hi @pauldyson @milindchidrawar @kriswest Should we also add the ability to create multiple interactions at once? E.g fdc3.raiseIntent('CreateInteraction', interactionList)

Just thinking about being able to report a conversation and not a single message from a chat application.

[pauldyson]

@pierreneu the intention is that it is a single interaction (conversation) whether it is one message or a whole series of them

[Yannick-Malins]

when https://github.com/finos/FDC3/pull/779/ is merged, maybe we could extend "description" to take a string or fdc3.chat.message ?

[kriswest]

@milindchidrawar spotted another minor error in the schema - please commit the suggestions I've just added.

[pierreneu]

@pierreneu the intention is that it is a single interaction (conversation) whether it is one message or a whole series of them

I guess that's fine. So there is a single initiator to the interaction, and when we are reporting several messages as part of one interaction, the initiator field cannot be used to track the sender of each message. If we want to track who said what with the current format, we would need to add the user names directly within the Description field.

[kriswest]

@mistryvinay this PR has conflicts with master again, however, i would suggest just going ahead and starting off a consolidated PR (branch off master), merge this into it (may require @milindchidrawar to merge master and resolve conflicts again, apologies), then we can merge in others (e.g. TransactionResult, Symphony PRs) and submit that consolidated PR to SWG for inclusion.