Update test wording to avoid confusion with "activation" terminology #170
Conversation
| @retrieve_sim_swap_date_4_sim_not_activated | ||
| Scenario: Retrieves SIM swap date for a non-activated sim | ||
| @retrieve_sim_swap_date_4_sim_never_connected | ||
| Scenario: Retrieves SIM swap date for a sim that has never been connected to the network |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The test case looks a bit fuzzy for me. Sim was not connected to the network - ok, but was it replaced? One can purchase a SIM and request an replacement before it is connect it to the network. From the SimSwap definition (and potential attack vector) this is still a SimSwap.
Suggestion: avoid "connected to the network" validation and keep things simple: Sim either was associated with a phone number (pre-provision, on first-call, different ways) or not. The date when this association is the SimSwap date, independent on what user did with that or other SIM cards associated with the phone number.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm fine with the proposal to change wording from connected to associated if it works also for @fernandopradocabrillo
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes I agree with the proposal. It is clearer and makes more sense that way, I'll adapt it
Thanks!
What type of PR is this?
Add one of the following kinds:
What this PR does / why we need it:
Updates test @retrieve_sim_swap_date_4_* wording
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #169