You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When I submitted #297, I was under the impression that the existing JSON schema allowed an associated_trip value for any event_type_reason. It turns out that this is incorrect and the schema only allows an associated_trip for user_pick_up and user_drop_off events. If an event with a different reason has an associated_trip, both branches of the oneOf clause are true and the schema validation fails.
Now that the spec unambiguously states that any event can have an associated_trip if it ends a trip, we should update the schema to be consistent with this. I'm not sure how schema-only changes have been handled w/r/t the versioning/release process so far.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
yeah! schema only fixes have been treated as breaking in the past IIRC, but we should def fix this in time for 0.4.0 and perhaps consider an out of cycle patch release of 0.3.3 series.
(also sorry for not catching this sooner, I was out of pocket for a week).
Can you submit a PR and then @thekaveman and I can figure out what to with it
The classic example has been unavailable/low_battery, for the case where a trip ends involuntarily because the battery runs out and there’s no period of availability in between. This could also apply to maintenance.
When I submitted #297, I was under the impression that the existing JSON schema allowed an
associated_trip
value for anyevent_type_reason
. It turns out that this is incorrect and the schema only allows anassociated_trip
foruser_pick_up
anduser_drop_off
events. If an event with a different reason has anassociated_trip
, both branches of theoneOf
clause are true and the schema validation fails.Now that the spec unambiguously states that any event can have an
associated_trip
if it ends a trip, we should update the schema to be consistent with this. I'm not sure how schema-only changes have been handled w/r/t the versioning/release process so far.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: