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

Unix Timestamp clarification in Provider API #87

Closed
asadowns opened this issue Sep 22, 2018 · 1 comment
Closed

Unix Timestamp clarification in Provider API #87

asadowns opened this issue Sep 22, 2018 · 1 comment
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@asadowns
Copy link
Contributor

Time fields like start_time, end_time, and route timestamp currently specify their type as Unix Timestamp. An example from route timestamp is 1531007628.3774529.

This leaves it open to interpretation and confusion what the correct format is.

GBFS spec specifies for instance

Integer POSIX timestamp

and provides an example 1434054678 or epoch seconds.

So using the example from route it should be either 1531007628 for epoch seconds. Or, if greater precision is required epoch milliseconds would be 531007628377.

In either case it would be good to clarify what the preferred format for providing time is. If you let me know your preference, I'll put out a PR.

@thekaveman
Copy link
Collaborator

thekaveman commented Sep 22, 2018

Great point @asadowns, some clarification would be useful here. I personally like the GBFS approach; keeping it as integer, epoch seconds. I can't think of why millisecond precision would be necessary for provider. Yet on the agency side, I can see where that might matter more.

And ideally, as elsewhere, the two should be aligned where possible.

Edit: recalling that @ian-r-rose expressed interest in relaxing the integer restriction over on CityofSantaMonica/mds-provider#4 (comment).

@thekaveman thekaveman added this to the 0.1.1 milestone Sep 25, 2018
@thekaveman thekaveman modified the milestones: 0.1.1, 0.2.0 Sep 26, 2018
@thekaveman thekaveman self-assigned this Sep 27, 2018
thekaveman added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 27, 2018
thekaveman added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 27, 2018
thekaveman added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 27, 2018
hunterowens pushed a commit that referenced this issue Oct 1, 2018
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