Incorporate priority in sorting #23
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
dirschn
approved these changes
Dec 11, 2023
| function filterPublicMessages(publicMessages, routeAbbreviations) { | ||
| return publicMessages.filter((message) => { | ||
| if ((routeAbbreviations instanceof Array) && (message['Routes'].length > 0)) { | ||
| return message['Routes'].some((route) => route['RouteAbbreviation'].includes(route.abbreviation)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would understand not wanting to do it here, but since you basically rewrote it all anyway.... #15 mentions removing all filtered out routes. If you want to keep that separate though then fine
separate PRs for separate issues! blahblahblah
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Makes it so the message sorting logic considers message priority first and (minimum) route sort order second
I didn't end up incorporating the date/time values because the implementation was really gross and in the grand scheme of things, I think not really necessary (it would sparsely be triggered, and not super impactful, considering we implemented #13).
Closes #6