-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 232
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
Clarification on how MDS should compute dwell time duration #711
Comments
Hi @nelsonsantryl @schnuerle @jean-populus |
Sorry we didn't follow up on this. The way we work our way to an estimate of dwell time is through the status of the vehicles. What we are currently offering to do is to count the time spent (with the proper policy rule type therefore) that can be spent in the statuses that correspond to a device being on the public right of way, but not in motion. |
This will need to move to a future release unless a PR is made this week. |
If this is still relevant after the MDS 2.0 changes, please comment and we can reopen. |
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I’d like to clarify how MDS should compute the duration of dwell time. Given a “time-type” policy like so:
My understanding is that a scooter in the ...3b9 geography would match under the following conditions:
Describe the solution you'd like
I want to confirm the following (and add some wording for clarity to the spec): The timer does NOT reset if there is a state change where both states are listed in the rule, and the vehicle has not exited the geography.
Is this a breaking change
A breaking change would require consumers or implementors of the API to modify their code for it to continue to function (ex: renaming of a required field or the change in data type of an existing field). A non-breaking change would allow existing code to continue to function (ex: addition of an optional field or the creation of a new optional endpoint).
Impacted Spec
For which spec is this feature being requested?
policy
Describe alternatives you've considered
None.
Additional context
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: