Skip to content
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

Remove support for many non-standard fields in trips.txt #284

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

leonardehrenfried
Copy link
Collaborator

@leonardehrenfried leonardehrenfried commented Sep 12, 2024

This removes many non-standard fields from trips.txt that are not part of the GTFS specification:

  • routeShortName
  • continuousDropOffMessage
  • drtMaxTravelTime
  • drtAdvanceBookMin
  • drtDropOffMessage
  • continuousPickupMessage
  • continuousDropOffMessage

Heads up to @Heidebritta @jeffmaki @sheldonabrown These affect transformer strategies that you originally wrote.

@jeffmaki
Copy link
Collaborator

I'm no longer at CS, I don't think Heide or Sheldon are either, but just curious: these were all optional, why remove them?

@leonardehrenfried
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Because they are not part of the GTFS spec and I cannot find a proposal for them.

I would like to avoid a library with lots of fields that have no documentation and an unclear status.

All the latest experimental fields have an annotation with a link to the proposal.

@jeffmaki
Copy link
Collaborator

I get that, your call. If this context is useful, I think the fields were from an early draft of -Flex or -BookingRules, but the standard evolved since. I agree the code should be updated, it just seemed extreme to break things as the "fix", but I also see your POV re: somebody needs to be maintaining this stuff on the side of the app that will break.

I have no horse in this race, just sharing. Thanks for the heads up.

@leonardehrenfried
Copy link
Collaborator Author

If you know someone that could provide context on these fields, could you tag them here?

I'm not dead set on removing them just wanting to do a bit of clean up.

In particular I would like to know what routeShortName on a trip is useful for. Isn't that duplicating information from the route?

@aaronbrethorst
Copy link
Member

Before removing these fields, it may be worth sharing the forthcoming breaking changes with the onebusaway-developers mailing list just to give the users of this library a heads up in case it affects them.

@jeffmaki
Copy link
Collaborator

jeffmaki commented Sep 12, 2024

Yeah, you know, I don't know who's left at CS managing these projects anymore. Try [email protected] maybe?

And my guess, though you might check with @novalis and/or the folks at TriMet is that certain services might change visible "branding" (route, headsign, etc.) mid-trip, and this was needed for that case. As you know, there's a lot of weird edge cases around the world on stuff like this.

I couldn't tell you who/where/why/when, and also acknowledge that may be non-standard and should be kicked back to the GTFS governance process. Just trying to help here?

@leonardehrenfried
Copy link
Collaborator Author

leonardehrenfried commented Sep 12, 2024

I understand the need for using non-standard fields and do so occasionally myself.

If people show up and provide a link to a document I will not delete them, of course.

@Heidebritta
Copy link
Collaborator

Heidebritta commented Sep 12, 2024 via email

@sberkley
Copy link

Hi @leonardehrenfried. I'm Scott Berkley, a software engineer at Sound Transit. We use OBA and OBA modules and continue to work with the remaining employees at CS. We don't use any of these fields, so I don't mind this particular breaking change, but would love to stay in touch about future development. Hopefully I can even make some contributions to the project myself!

@leonardehrenfried
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Welcome, @sberkley. I would sure love to collaborate.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants