-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
document OJP/TRIAS APIs #43
Comments
Thanks for getting this started! Adding this here has also been somewhere on my todo list :) We have only tested two endpoints so far, so not a lot of experience on how well things generalize yet:
OJP and TRIAS turned out to be 90+% the same code for us, so we are supporting both with the same implementation, but here we might still want to model them as different protocols I guess. Besides the endpoint URL, the HTTP Content-Type header for requests seems to be a relevant parameter (or I just haven't found one yet that works universally). I haven't looked into implementing multi-language support yet, so not sure if the options for that we have for other APIs are relevant. |
That's my experience as well. |
Another thought: Most TRIAS APIs require authorization and the implementation is proprietary. Some providers use a This will make it really hard for a TRIAS client to use these specifications as a basis for API connectvity, because it will likely require a custom implementation for every provider anyway. |
Would it? We could agree to add specific fields/values for each known auth type. |
Additionally this could be something to report back to VDV so they could consider adding it to a updated TRIAS-verison for the future? |
And is there already any current plan on how to continue on this issue? I already started to note down some endpoints, but would rather directly submit them to this repo. I could offer to create a draft in a fork of me, so we have something we can discuss, if no one started on this issue yet. |
Adding what specifically? Personally, I'd like VDV to only use standard HTTP mechanisms, preferably the |
Yes, create a draft in a fork, then submit a work-in-progress PR against this repo. We can then discuss the markup's details in there. |
Totally agree. What I meant, was that authorization or content-type could be added to be a part of the specification. |
#55 added VRN |
I think it is beneficial to differentiate between the TRIAS implementations. At least the MENTZ implementation of TRIAS is a severely limited subset. This is the only official documentation I know of, that describes which subset of TRIAS is implemented by MENTZ: https://www.dresden.de/media/pdf/wirtschaft/VVO_Beschreibung_der_Schnittstelle_API_fuer_die_Verbindungsauskunft.pdf These are discussions about more limitations of the MENTZ implementation of TRIAS: https://github.com/mobidata-bw/TRIAS/discussions |
We might want to do this feature-flag-based, not implementation-based, because
|
@andaryjo started doing this in the
trias-client
docs.@vkrause's
kpublictransport
also has support for >1 TRIAS endpoint.Let's define a way to specify all relevant aspects of TRIAS API endpoints in a machine-readable way, so that client libraries can use this information! This way, there will be
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: