-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 100
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
feat: Reduce severity of SameNameAndDescriptionForRouteNotice to WARNING #917
Conversation
The specification is currently being reviewed to become RFC 2119 compliant (see changes here).
If this does not make a dataset invalid (and should trigger a WARNING in the validator), we should:
@MobilityData/transit-specs thoughts? |
I have posted a comment regarding route_desc on google/transit#277 I suggest to merge this pull request #917 first because the current behaviour of Validator treats plenty of feeds as invalid. This makes more difficult adoption of the Validator by members of GTFS community. |
Hello, Thanks for your comment on google/transit! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for working on that @aababilov! One small documentation change should be provided here: SameNameAndDescriptionForRouteNotice
should be in the table of warnings instead of the table or errors in RULES.md
(same thing for the descriptions) and /docs/ NOTICES.md
:)
A route that has the same route_desc and route_short_name or route_long_name may be still served to the end user, so this is not an error. In fact, many consumers may just ignore route_desc completely. Numerous feeds that are consumed by Google do have this notice and they are considered valid. We also update the comment for the notice.
The notice became a warning.
a1e00b8
to
ceb7fe7
Compare
Done. I think that would be great to develop a way for generating that doc from Java code. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @aababilov!
I think that would be great to develop a way for generating that doc from Java code.
I agree, that would certainly help! Do you have examples of projects that have implemented this process in the past? Will definitely talk about this with @isabelle-dr and see how we can improve the gtfs-validator to this extent. Thanks for the suggestion!
A route that has the same route_desc and route_short_name or
route_long_name may be still served to the end user, so this is not an
error. In fact, many consumers may just ignore route_desc completely.
Numerous feeds that are consumed by Google do have this notice and they
are considered valid.
We also update the docs for the notice.