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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Clarify which vehicles to include in the
/vehicles
endpoint #882Clarify which vehicles to include in the
/vehicles
endpoint #882Changes from all commits
5f5e98e
90ad321
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.
"these vehicles must only persist in the feed for 90 minutes before being removed (and should persist in the feed for at least 90 minutes)" is the same as "these vehicles must persist in the feed for exactly 90 minutes", which sounds a bit strict, honestly. (I suppose the existing language comes across this way as well, but less explicitly.)
I really don't want to be called out-of-compliance because a vehicle was present for 91 minutes because some backend process got delayed by 1 minute. Technically enforcing such a TTL is not much more difficult than one with a grace period, but maybe allowing for things to be present for, say, up to 120 minutes will save some annoying discussions. I can't imagine what logic a consumer might have that would be thrown off by such a grace period (maybe someone will think of something though).
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.
We didn't come to a final decision on this in the meeting today, but people seemed open to softening this language a bit. Is "these vehicles must persist for no more than 90 minutes" the spirit of the original language?
I'll also mention that we do not currently return
elsewhere
vehicles at all (they're not in whichever jurisdiction, so returning "the status of all vehicles currently in the jurisdiction" would seem to naturally exclude them, theelsewhere
update would be available inevents/recent
if people want to see those in near-realtime), so a minimum guarantee for persisting such vehicles would be a change.