New modes at#9 mobility constraint zone enums#161
Conversation
…Zone__ Add missing enum values to __MobilityConstraintZone__ __TransportZoneUseEnumeration__: _allUsesAllowed_ and _noPassThrough_ .
| </vehicleRestrictions> | ||
| </MobilityServiceConstraintZone> | ||
| <MobilityServiceConstraintZone version="any" id="general_uses"> | ||
| <Name>Normal Use of zone s</Name> |
| <Contributor>Christophe Duquesne</Contributor> | ||
| <Coverage>Europe</Coverage> | ||
| <Creator>First drafted for NeTEx version 1.0 CEN TC278 WG3 SG9 Editor Nicholas Knowles. mailto:schemer@netex.org.uk</Creator> | ||
| <Creator>First drafted for NeTEx version 1.0 CEN TC278 WG3 SG9 Editor Nicholas Knowles. mailto:schemer@netex.org.uk</Creator>allUsesAllowed |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this suffix is supposed to be there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I edited the files for the 2 typos ... Stefan, I think we can direct do such type fix when we spot them
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Only if the pull request is editable. And to be frank, you approved merging, while you are now editing the pull request.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes sure ...making them editable is a good point. This one seam to be editable, that's how I did the correct the 2 issues you spotted and that I missed... thanks for spotting them
|
I wonder how it is possible that Travis did not see the error @nick-knowles just fixed. |
|
From that point, is it Ok to merge ? Shall we "merge commits" or "squash merge " (any general recommandation here ?) |
|
@Aurige please read the fine manual. |
3 participants
Revision for GBS compatibilty from Meeting 2021.04.14