Skip to content

Conversation

@bougue-pe
Copy link
Contributor

@bougue-pe bougue-pe commented Dec 18, 2025

LINEAR is not matching editoast's API (only used in core AFAIK), so this is the smallest modification possible for consistency.
Although, STANDARD is not a good name IMO as it doesn't carry precise meaning (like type or category for example), LINEAR is better in that regard (but way more changes are necessary).

Client I know of is already using STANDARD, with own (😓) model instead of osrd-schemas for that.

@bougue-pe bougue-pe requested review from a team as code owners December 18, 2025 10:52
@bougue-pe bougue-pe requested review from Castavo and shenriotpro and removed request for shenriotpro December 18, 2025 10:52
@github-actions github-actions bot added area:railjson Work on Proposed Unified Rail Assets Data Exchange Format area:integration-tests Work on Integration test, by nature related to different services labels Dec 18, 2025
LINEAR is not matching editoast's API (only used in core AFAIK)

Signed-off-by: Pierre-Etienne Bougué <bougue.pe@proton.me>
after osrd-schemas' bump in previous PR

Signed-off-by: Pierre-Etienne Bougué <bougue.pe@proton.me>
@bougue-pe bougue-pe force-pushed the peb/osrd_schemas/fix_standard_allowance branch from d0d19c6 to 6c49882 Compare December 18, 2025 10:55
@shenriotpro
Copy link
Contributor

Sounds like we should update version numbers?

@bougue-pe
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sounds like we should update version numbers?

OK to bump, just waiting to make sure this change is the solution we want.

@Castavo
Copy link
Contributor

Castavo commented Dec 19, 2025

I don't think much can be argued against moving osrd-schemas closer to editoast's api.

Rewriting the API would indeed be a lot of work, even though it would make sense.

We can always approve and merge this right now and plan for the rewrite of the api later

Copy link
Member

@flomonster flomonster left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area:integration-tests Work on Integration test, by nature related to different services area:railjson Work on Proposed Unified Rail Assets Data Exchange Format

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants