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

refactor: introduce DRYness to isochrone map builders #1591

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

aoles
Copy link
Member

@aoles aoles commented Nov 2, 2023

Pull Request Checklist

  • 1. I have rebased the latest version of the master branch into my feature branch and all conflicts
    have been resolved.
  • 2. I have added information about the change/addition to functionality to the CHANGELOG.md file under the
    [Unreleased] heading.
  • 3. I have documented my code using JDocs tags.
  • 4. I have removed unnecessary commented out code, imports and System.out.println statements.
  • 5. I have written JUnit tests for any new methods/classes and ensured that they pass.
  • 6. I have created API tests for any new functionality exposed to the API.
  • 7. If changes/additions are made to the ors-config.json file, I have added these to the ors config documentation
    along with a short description of what it is for, and documented this in the Pull Request (below).
  • 8. I have built graphs with my code of the Heidelberg.osm.gz file and run the api-tests with all test passing
  • 9. I have referenced the Issue Number in the Pull Request (if the changes were from an issue).
  • 10. For new features or changes involving building of graphs, I have tested on a larger dataset
    (at least Germany), and the graphs build without problems (i.e. no out-of-memory errors).
  • 11. For new features or changes involving the graphbuilding process (i.e. changing encoders, updating the
    importer etc.), I have generated longer distance routes for the affected profiles with different options
    (avoid features, max weight etc.) and compared these with the routes of the same parameters and start/end
    points generated from the current live ORS.
    If there are differences then the reasoning for these MUST be documented in the pull request.
  • 12. I have written in the Pull Request information about the changes made including their intended usage
    and why the change was needed.
  • 13. For changes touching the API documentation, I have tested that the API playground renders correctly.

Information about the changes

  • Key functionality added: moved parts shared by isochrone builders into a common abstract class.
  • Reason for change: clean-up duplicated code.

@aoles aoles marked this pull request as draft November 2, 2023 15:49
@aoles aoles force-pushed the refactoring/isochrones branch from 85dab74 to 97a8245 Compare November 2, 2023 22:03
@aoles aoles requested a review from rtroilo January 29, 2024 12:04
@aoles aoles marked this pull request as ready for review January 29, 2024 12:08
@aoles aoles force-pushed the refactoring/isochrones branch from 11ee219 to a15a5b2 Compare January 29, 2024 13:59
rtroilo
rtroilo previously approved these changes Jan 30, 2024
Copy link
Member

@rtroilo rtroilo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

@rtroilo rtroilo self-requested a review January 30, 2024 08:57
@rtroilo rtroilo dismissed their stale review January 30, 2024 09:00

for it self, this pr is approved, but in context of pr #1607 it needs reconsidering!

@aoles aoles marked this pull request as draft January 30, 2024 12:13
@aoles
Copy link
Member Author

aoles commented Feb 8, 2024

Not relevant anymore because of the changes introduced in #1607 and #1658.

@aoles aoles closed this Feb 8, 2024
@MichaelsJP MichaelsJP added this to the V8 Release milestone Mar 7, 2024
@aoles aoles deleted the refactoring/isochrones branch May 13, 2024 08:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
No open projects
Status: Review
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants