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

docs(topojson-export): add topojson response documentation #1935

Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Chwiggy
Copy link
Contributor

@Chwiggy Chwiggy commented Dec 16, 2024

Pull Request Checklist

  • 1. I have rebased the latest version of the main 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.

Fixes # .

Information about the changes

  • Reason for change: Updated documentation

@Chwiggy Chwiggy force-pushed the feat/add-topojson-graph-export-rebase branch from 3acd60a to 5efeced Compare December 16, 2024 11:35
@koebi
Copy link
Collaborator

koebi commented Dec 17, 2024

What about making the json response example smaller (i.e. 4 nodes and 2 edges, just to see what's happening) and adding a topojson response example for the same region, so people directly see the difference?

Sascha Fendrich and others added 3 commits December 17, 2024 15:47
When requesting a topojson export, the accept-header must be set
to 'json' not 'topojson' because topojson is not yet an official
content type. Instead of just telling that topojson is invalid,
the error message now hints to using json instead.
@takb
Copy link
Contributor

takb commented Dec 17, 2024

What about making the json response example smaller (i.e. 4 nodes and 2 edges, just to see what's happening) and adding a topojson response example for the same region, so people directly see the difference?

I tried to find a smaller selection where the difference is visible.

While doing so I discovered a potential bug in the TopoJSON creation, will need to look a bit further tomorrow...

Sascha Fendrich added 2 commits December 18, 2024 10:21
The message now clarifies that the TopoJSON output format of the
export endpoint requires, both, accept header and content type
to be specified as application/json.
Moving more towards the principle "parse, don't validate"
enables simplifying the conversion of the API-level
request into a core-level request and prepares factoring out
common behavior of multiple endpoints.
@takb takb enabled auto-merge December 19, 2024 09:03
@takb takb requested a review from koebi December 19, 2024 09:03
@takb takb removed their request for review December 19, 2024 09:03
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants