[R25.06] DCM: Additional Content E2E Test

[LukasSchmetz]

Overview

Add further E2E Test Journeys beyond the Base Journey to the Development View in the DCM KIT.

Explain the topic in 2 sentences

Add further E2E Test Journeys about Inactivity Capacity Groups/Material Demand and Nesting of Capacity Groups. This includes test cases and data.

What's the benefit?

Availability to execute additional testing of DCM functionalities.

What are the Risks/Dependencies ?

Low Risks / No Dependencies to other teams

Feature Team

Contributor

• Lukas Schmetz
• Markus Wagner
• Philipp Mai

Committer

• @eclipse-tractusx/automotive-tractusx-committers

Acceptance Criteria

• New advanced test journeys developed
• New advanced test journeys written
• New advanced test journeys added to Development View in DCM KIT

Architectural Relevance

The following items are ensured (answer: yes) after this issue is implemented.

In the context of the standards 126 and 127, typically only one is applicable, depending on the specific use case. Please cross out one of the two standards that does not apply.

• This feature aligns with our current architectural guidelines
  • Data Sovereignty: All data sharing activities across company boundaries follow the Catena-X Regulatory Framework, in particular the Data Exchange Governance, and the Dataspace Protocol via a compliant Connector (like the tractusx-edc or similar, see Connector KIT)
    • CX-0010 Business Partner Number
    • CX-0013 Identity of Member Companies
    • CX-0018 Data Space Connectivity (EDC)
    • CX-0049 DID Document Schema
    • CX-0050 Framework Agreement Credential
    • CX-0149 Verified Company Identity
  • Interoperability: Digital Twins are used (compliant to the Digital Twin KIT and the Industry Core KIT)
    • CX-0001 EDC Discovery API
    • CX-0002 Digital Twins in Catena-X
    • CX-0018 Data Space Connectivity (EDC)
    • CX-0126 Industry Core: Part Type 2.0.0
    • CX-0127 Industry Core: Part Instance 2.0.0
  • Data Format:
    • The data model is based on a published Semantic Model
• The impact on the overall system architecture has been assessed. The Feature does not require changes to the architecture or any existing standard? Please have a look here on the overarching architecture
• Potential risks or conflicts with existing architecture has been assessed

Justification: (Fill this out, if at least one of the checkboxes above cannot be ticked. Contact the Architecture Management Committee to get an approval for the justification)

Additional information

• I am aware that my request may not be developed if no developer can be found for it. I'll try to contribute a developer (bring your own developer)