phone_number_field different between PersonalInformation and DGFIP scopes

[giffarda]

CMS/conceptual_model/schemas/personal-information.schema.json

Lines 146 to 150 in 110ac7e

	"phone_number_field": {
	"type": "object",
	"properties": {
	"value": {
	"type": "string",

CMS/conceptual_model/schemas/fr-dgfip-information.schema.json

Lines 276 to 279 in 110ac7e

	"mobile": {
	"type": "boolean",
	"$comment": "if the telephone is mobile, meaning it can receive SMS"
	},

Hi,

For phone number field type, a boolean "mobile" was added. It is indicated in the DGFIP schema.json but not in PersonalInformation schema.json. Can you confirm we want this boolean in all scopes which need a phone number ?

Thanks in advance

[jthiard]

There seems to be a mismatch between the json schemas and the markdown documentation for that matter.

To move this forward I suggest that we add this mobile property in all places where a phone number is expected, but that we make this property optional (it is required in the DGFIP scope at the moment).

Does this will fit your use case ?

[giffarda]

Yes, it is good for us. In my opinion, the important thing is that the phone number type is the same in all over the specification, as much as possible.
The property mobile can be required or optional, but optional seems to be a right choice.