Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
GBFS documentation versioning and and feed conformance #188
GBFS documentation versioning and and feed conformance #188
Changes from 2 commits
29db809
ea50d81
8cf699e
d746a64
1397ac4
fc77ed2
c2dc3d6
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are minor changes batched too, or does every change that qualifies as a minor change bump the
MINOR
version?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was intentionally silent so that MINOR changes could be batched or not batched, depending on their timeline. My assumption is that if changes occur soon after each other, we might as well batch. But, with backwards-compatibility issues absent, it doesn't make sense to hold back changes too long for a batched version bump. I'll explicitly state this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would state this explicitly just so there isn't any confusion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For consistency with the rest of the documentation, wherever new JSON fields were added, can we add a space after the
:
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good catch. Changed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are we going to remain silent on how versioning should be handled in the URL path?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What do you think? Should we offer a recommendation? As this is written, it's up to the discretion of the feed producers. The examples offer suggestions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Perhaps we should state that a URL must never change its major version. For example, if a feed doesn't want to include a version in the path, that's fine, but it must not change from v1 to v2 ever.
This actually brings up another question - can a feed change from 1.0 to 1.1? Technically this should not break anything, and it would mean that publishers could have, say,
https://www.example.com/gbfs/1/fr/system_information
for their feed that conformed to the 1.X spec. Would this be confusing for consumers?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One challenge for dictating versions in URL paths is that it could conflict with existing versioning schemes or numbers used by producers in URL paths. For example, HOPR currently uses integers in the URL path to identify systems - https://gbfs.hopr.city/api/gbfs/6 vs https://gbfs.hopr.city/api/gbfs/8.
So there could be significant backwards compatibility concerns.
If we require the auto-discovery file (see proposal at #189), I'm inclined to let producers manage their own URL paths.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jcn I just pushed a change that responds to what you pointed out. Please let me know what you think…
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should be
(you're missing the key name)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good catch. Fixed.