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 UUID4 validation for device_id and trip_id in agency api #244

Closed
amalakar opened this issue Feb 21, 2019 · 2 comments
Closed

Remove UUID4 validation for device_id and trip_id in agency api #244

amalakar opened this issue Feb 21, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@amalakar
Copy link

In the current specification the api mandates that the following fields are UUID4 (as per https://github.com/CityOfLosAngeles/mobility-data-specification/tree/1b0fb7ba707d85d0cfbc8cb5d4bd2ae90fd351e1/agency )

Field Type Required/Optional Comments
device_id UUID4 Required ID used in Register
trip_id UUID4 Required UUID provided by Operator to uniquely identify the trip.

This breaks backward compatibility though, the provider api didn't require these fields to be UUID4, and it needed it just to be an UUID as per: https://github.com/CityOfLosAngeles/mobility-data-specification/tree/1b0fb7ba707d85d0cfbc8cb5d4bd2ae90fd351e1/provider

Field Type Required/Optional Comments
device_id UUID Required A unique device ID in UUID format
trip_id UUID Required A unique ID for each trip

In our system lot of the above fields are in uuid v1 which would fail to validate as UUID4 (because the version number 4 is not present in the uuid), this stops us from ingesting those device_id using the agency api. The agency api throws not a valid UUID4, would you please consider removing the validation of UUID4 and let it be just an UUID to match the provider api.

@marie-x
Copy link
Collaborator

marie-x commented Feb 22, 2019

Opened PR #249 to relax Agency to require UUID rather than UUID4. Sandbox is updated as of now (Friday 2/22 9A PST). Will close this after PR is merged.

@amalakar
Copy link
Author

Thank you @Karcass for the prompt response, appreciate the collaboration.

@marie-x marie-x closed this as completed Feb 22, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants