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

from_stop_id and to_stop_id not required for transfer_type 4 & 5 #1621

Closed
brodyFlannigan opened this issue Dec 11, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1772
Closed

from_stop_id and to_stop_id not required for transfer_type 4 & 5 #1621

brodyFlannigan opened this issue Dec 11, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1772
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working (crash, a rule has a problem) status: Ready An issue that is ready to be worked on.

Comments

@brodyFlannigan
Copy link

Describe the bug

Hi!

The GTFS specification does not explicitly require that from_stop_id and to_stop_id be provided for records in transfers.txt with a transfer_type of 4 or 5. However, the validator reports a missing_required_field error if these two fields are not provided.

Steps/Code to Reproduce

Using the online GTFS validator, validate this file:
transcollines-qc-ca-fares-transfers.zip

(Ignore the other errors about translations and shape distances, those are known and being worked on)

Expected Results

Validator should not report a missing_required_field error if from_stop_id and to_stop_id are not provided in transfers.txt if transfer_type = 4 or 5

Actual Results

Validator returns a missing_required_field error if from_stop_id and to_stop_id are not provided in transfers.txt if transfer_type = 4 or 5

Screenshots

No response

Files used

transcollines-qc-ca-fares-transfers.zip

(Ignore other errors about translations and shape distances, those are known and are being worked on)

Validator version

4.2.1-SNAPSHOT

Operating system

(Web version of validator)

Java version

No response

Additional notes

No response

@brodyFlannigan brodyFlannigan added bug Something isn't working (crash, a rule has a problem) status: Needs triage Applied to all new issues labels Dec 11, 2023
Copy link

welcome bot commented Dec 11, 2023

Thanks for opening your first issue in this project! If you haven't already, you can join our slack and join the #gtfs-validators channel to meet our awesome community. Come say hi 👋!

Welcome to the community and thank you for your engagement in open source! 🎉

@emmambd emmambd added this to the Now milestone Jan 9, 2024
@emmambd emmambd added status: Ready An issue that is ready to be worked on. and removed status: Needs triage Applied to all new issues labels Jan 9, 2024
@emmambd emmambd added status: Blocked Can't work on it currently because of an external factor. and removed status: Ready An issue that is ready to be worked on. labels Feb 26, 2024
@emmambd emmambd removed this from the Now milestone Feb 26, 2024
@emmambd emmambd added this to the Next milestone Mar 13, 2024
@emmambd emmambd modified the milestones: Next, Now Mar 21, 2024
@emmambd emmambd added status: Ready An issue that is ready to be worked on. and removed status: Blocked Can't work on it currently because of an external factor. labels May 9, 2024
@davidgamez davidgamez self-assigned this May 22, 2024
@davidgamez
Copy link
Member

Hi @brodyFlannigan, thanks for your contribution. PR #1772 addresses this issue. There is also a great discussion (google/transit#455) regarding clarifying the rule in the spec. We plan to have this fix in the next release(date TBD, sometime this summer). Please feel free to look over the PR and add your comments.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working (crash, a rule has a problem) status: Ready An issue that is ready to be worked on.
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants