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
Support Number on Tracks #57
Conversation
Added massive lands-end-to-johnogroats gpx as test for track numbers.
Can you also update the changelog? bors |
🔒 Permission denied Existing reviewers: click here to make lnicola a reviewer |
Changelog and Cargo version updated |
@lnicola try again when you're ready. |
Hmm, do you think it's worth removing some of the data from that trace? I haven't looked at the file (not at the others), but it might be a good idea to use small test cases. |
That's a very reasonable ask, I'll generate a smaller gpx sample file for this test and update here |
I'm also worried about potential privacy implications, but maybe that's not the case here. |
bors d+ |
✌️ tehsmeely can now approve this pull request. To approve and merge a pull request, simply reply with |
…lands end to john o groats file
Also a good point, both are generic "random" routes exported from google maps not pointing to any locations that should pose privacy concerns Updated test files |
bors r+ |
Build succeeded: |
Thanks Folks! |
Next time please squash after replacing large files 😬. |
GPX 1.1 Spec includes an optional Number on Track elements, which support is added for here.
Some Gpx files exported from google maps appear to include this so included test + test gpx file from that are used to verify change.
N.b. Number, as a u8, was already present and commented out on the Track struct - in case there was some history there being dragged up (It was already commented out during a refactor 4 years ago and that's as far back as i looked ...)
CHANGELOG.md
if knowledge of this change could be valuable to users.