-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 49
adding CheckConstraint to StopPointInJourneyPattern #1020
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
Open
ue71603
wants to merge
6
commits into
v2.1-wip
Choose a base branch
from
CheckConstraint_added_StopPointInJourneyPattern
base: v2.1-wip
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+11
−2
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
3a348d1
adding CheckConstraint to StopPointInJourneyPattern
ue71603 a471f2a
Update xsd/netex_part_1/part1_tacticalPlanning/netex_servicePattern_v…
ue71603 0f638c5
Update v2.1-wip branch from v2.0 (#1023)
TuThoThai 6ad6416
Merge branch 'v2.1-wip' into CheckConstraint_added_StopPointInJourney…
TuThoThai 34348c0
Lint and update documentation tables
github-actions[bot] 9cd5bab
Merge branch 'v2.1-wip' into CheckConstraint_added_StopPointInJourney…
TuThoThai File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -88,3 +88,4 @@ fabric.properties | |
| # Editor-based Rest Client | ||
| .idea/httpRequests | ||
|
|
||
| /.idea | ||
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
Did you place it in the middle to align it with Call?
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 tried. But different place would also be ok. We had in OJP some cases where we switched the order of some elements in service and this caused problems. So to do it as harmonised as possible seems a good idea to me.
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.
You understand that the way you are now doing it explicitly would break parsing and validation? So if it was deliberate to put them here, was this because in the other structures they are already at this point?