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

Change boolean values from 1/0 to true/false #196

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 27, 2020
Merged

Conversation

heidiguenin
Copy link
Contributor

As per the general consensus over on Issue #10

Because this is a breaking change, it would not be implemented until we move into the next major version. The issues been open for coming on 4 years, though, so once we're ready for the next major version, it would be great to include this change!

@jcn
Copy link
Contributor

jcn commented Nov 26, 2019

I propose that in the Field Definitions section we include language like:

  • Boolean values must be JSON booleans, not strings (i.e. true or false, not "true" or "false")

adding new field definition: boolean values to be JSON booleans, not strings
@heidiguenin
Copy link
Contributor Author

Proposal revised to reflect @jcn's recommendation to add new Field Definition.

@gcamp
Copy link

gcamp commented Nov 26, 2019

Look good to me

@heidiguenin
Copy link
Contributor Author

I hereby call a vote on this proposal. Voting will be open for 7 full days, until 11:59PM UTC on December 6th.

Please vote for or against the proposal, and include the organization for which you are voting in your comment.

@yocontra
Copy link
Contributor

yocontra commented Dec 2, 2019

+1 from Stae

@madupras
Copy link
Contributor

madupras commented Dec 3, 2019

+1 from PBSC

@quicklywilliam
Copy link

+1 from Ride Report

@evansiroky
Copy link
Contributor

+1 from IBI Group

@gcamp
Copy link

gcamp commented Dec 5, 2019

+1 from Transit

@johnpena
Copy link

johnpena commented Dec 6, 2019

+1 from Lime

@charlesjump
Copy link

+1 JUMP

@heidiguenin
Copy link
Contributor Author

The vote on this is now closed, and it passes.

Votes for:

  1. Stae
  2. PBSC
  3. Ride Report
  4. IBI Group
  5. Transit
  6. Lime
  7. Jump

There were no votes against. Much of the MobilityData team is traveling today, so we'll take next steps in the coming days!

@antrim antrim added the v2.0 Candidate change for GBFS 2.0 (Major release) label Jan 3, 2020
@antrim antrim merged commit 642a8f1 into master Jan 27, 2020
@heidiguenin
Copy link
Contributor Author

We'd love to make this an official part of the spec, but first we need to see this change being implemented. Could you comment here if your organization has implemented this?

@evansiroky @quicklywilliam @charlesjump @gcamp @contra @johnpena @madupras Others?

@madupras
Copy link
Contributor

Please see this comment in the other ticket: #182 (comment)
This change is also part of our GBFS version 2 implentation plan.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
gbfs.md v2.0 Candidate change for GBFS 2.0 (Major release) Vote Passed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.