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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Check for non-empty feed_contact_email field within feed_info.txt #1280

Open
owades opened this issue Oct 18, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Check for non-empty feed_contact_email field within feed_info.txt #1280

owades opened this issue Oct 18, 2022 · 2 comments
Labels
community rules This is used for Out of Spec / Out of Best Practice rules that we'd like to include in the validator new rule New rule to be added status: Blocked Can't work on it currently because of an external factor.

Comments

@owades
Copy link

owades commented Oct 18, 2022

Describe the problem

The California Minimum General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) Guidelines require that:

A technical contact is provided within the published GTFS Schedule dataset in the feed_contact_email field within the feed_info.txt file.

Since this is not a required field according to gtfs.org, this check is not currently performed by the validator.

Describe the new validation rule

If feed_contact_email field in feed_info.txt is empty, trigger a "missing_feed_contact_email" notice.

Sample GTFS datasets

No response

Severity

Warning

Additional context

No response
@owades owades added new rule New rule to be added status: Needs triage Applied to all new issues labels Oct 18, 2022
@isabelle-dr
Copy link
Contributor

This use case is similar to what is described in #1277, my answer is the same 😊

@isabelle-dr isabelle-dr added community rules This is used for Out of Spec / Out of Best Practice rules that we'd like to include in the validator status: Blocked Can't work on it currently because of an external factor. and removed status: Needs triage Applied to all new issues labels Nov 3, 2022
@isabelle-dr
Copy link
Contributor

I am labeling it as blocked.
There is active work being done to modify the validator to support this use case, let's come back to this issue when we close issue #1067.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
community rules This is used for Out of Spec / Out of Best Practice rules that we'd like to include in the validator new rule New rule to be added status: Blocked Can't work on it currently because of an external factor.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@owades @isabelle-dr