fix: ShapeIncreasingDistanceValidator #1083

lionel-nj · 2021-12-22T16:11:43Z

Summary:

This PR provides support to: make warning-level notice when an equal shape_dist_traveled value is encountered and the previous row in the sequence had the same GPS coordinate.

Expected behavior:

DecreasingShapeDistanceNotice as an ERROR: should be issued when shape_dist_traveled decreases between two consecutive shape points (based on shape_pt_sequence);
EqualShapeDistanceDiffCoordinatesNotice as an ERROR: should be issued when shape_dist_traveled is equal between two consecutives shape points that have different GPS coordinates;
EqualShapeDistanceSameCoordinatesNotice as a WARNING: should be issued when shape_dist_traveled is equal between two consecutives shape points that have the same GPS coordinates.

@evansiroky @botanize your comments and feedback are more than welcome :)

Please make sure these boxes are checked before submitting your pull request - thanks!

Run the unit tests with gradle test to make sure you didn't break anything
Format the title like "feat: [new feature short description]". Title must follow the Conventional Commit Specification(https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/).
Linked all relevant issues
~~[ ] Include screenshot(s) showing how this pull request works and fixes the issue(s)~~

- additional unit test - update documentation to match latest development

evansiroky · 2021-12-22T19:06:26Z

...src/main/java/org/mobilitydata/gtfsvalidator/validator/ShapeIncreasingDistanceValidator.java

+    return shape.shapePtLon() == otherShape.shapePtLon()
+        && shape.shapePtLat() == otherShape.shapePtLat();


One of the errors we've been seeing a lot is when there are two shape points that are very close to each other (<1 meter apart) and the shape distance was equal. It could've been that the shape distance units in a particular feed were in kilometers and that due to a rounding process the distance was equal and therefore probably an OK value. It would be great if this check here could return true if the coordinates are less than 1 meter apart.

One question is why 1 meter, why not 80cm or 1.20m?

1 meter is arbitrary honestly. Maybe @barbeau can provide some more educated insights into GPS precision and measurement.

botanize · 2021-12-22T19:20:40Z

RULES.md

+
+<a name="EqualShapeDistanceNotice"/>
+
+When sorted by `shape.shape_pt_sequence`, two consecutive shape points must not have equal values for `shape_dist_traveled` if their GPS coordinates are the same.


I think this should read "if their GPS coordinates are not the same". It's an error to have equal distances with different coordinates, it's a warning to have equal distances and equal coordinates.

My only other concern is that at least for our feed, which generates equal distances every stop pair, we get 10s of thousands of these notices per validation. I'd love to have the ability to output an abbreviated json validation report that reported the number of times each notices happened, but only the first X occurrences.

I think this should read "if their GPS coordinates are not the same".

👍🏾

It's an error to have equal distances with different coordinates, it's a warning to have equal distances and equal coordinates.

Or if said coordinates are actually ~~less~~ more than 1 meter away according to #1083 (comment).

My only other concern is that at least for our feed, which generates equal distances every stop pair, we get 10s of thousands of these notices per validation. I'd love to have the ability to output an abbreviated json validation report that reported the number of times each notices happened, but only the first X occurrences.

As of now a maximum of 1000 of notices are exported by type and severity, and the validation report gives information about the total number of notices per type and severity.

gtfs-validator/core/src/main/java/org/mobilitydata/gtfsvalidator/notice/NoticeContainer.java

Line 54 in a871d4b

private static final int MAX_EXPORTS_PER_NOTICE_TYPE_AND_SEVERITY = 1_000;

gtfs-validator/core/src/main/java/org/mobilitydata/gtfsvalidator/notice/NoticeContainer.java

Lines 190 to 193 in a871d4b

if (i > maxExportsPerNoticeTypeAndSeverity) {

// Do not export too many notices for this type.

break;

}

I'd love to have the ability to output an abbreviated json validation report that reported the number of times each notices happened, but only the first X occurrences.

I see this as separate from the bug fixed here. We could allow users to reduce this limit in a separate PR by making the limit user configurable. cc @isabelle-dr.

- additional unit test - update documentation to match latest development

lionel-nj · 2021-12-23T19:51:20Z

Some stats:

As of now:

108 datasets trigger EqualShapeDistanceNotice as an ERROR
272 datasets trigger EqualShapeDistanceNotice as aWARNING
2 datasets trigger DecreasingShapeDistanceNotice
713 datasets are valid (no error)

Before the fix:

277 datasets triggered DecreasingOrEqualShapeDistanceNotice as an ERROR
608 datasets were valid (no error)

Also, with this fix no additional error type is introduced (i.e. no dataset go from valid to invalid).

cc @isabelle-dr

isabelle-dr · 2021-12-23T21:26:32Z

Hello,

A few thoughts/questions about the original issue and the modification of DecreasingOrEqualShapeDistanceNotice in this PR.

Getting those stats is amazing! Seing that among all the datasets that have equal values for shape_dist_traveled, there is almost a 30-70% split between the ones that have the same coordinates and the ones that have different coordinates confirms that it's worth looking into what is actually a severe problem here. Thanks @botanize and @evansiroky for highlighting this issue and @lionel-nj for getting these numbers!
Would EqualShapeDistanceNotice be it the first rule that can appear as an error or a warning, depending on the logic? How would this work with our plans with the custom validation feature? (especially, if we go towards our second option using extended base validation class.)
Would it be more clear for our users if we had two distinct rules for EqualShapeDistanceNotice for the two cases we have here?
Again, keeping in mind that soon, users will be able to upgrade or downgrade a notice. My initial feeling is that it might be more clear to have two distinct notices for different severity levels, even if part of the code is the same. I'd love to hear your thoughts here @evansiroky and @botanize.

Here are other options we could look at:

option 1:
- DecreasingOrEqualShapeDistanceNotice (ERROR): when shape_dist_traveled values are decreasing OR (when they are equal AND coordinates are different)
- EqualShapeDistanceNotice (WARNING): when shape_dist_traveled values are equal AND coordinates are equal
option 2:
- DecreasingShapeDistanceNotice (ERROR)
- EqualShapeDistanceDiffCoordinatesNotice (ERROR)
- EqualShapeDistanceSameCoordinatesNotice (WARNING)

Do we have the same problem for DecreasingOrEqualStopTimeDistanceNotice?
About what we consider as "same coordinates"

It would be great if this check here could return true if the coordinates are less than 1 meter apart.

This makes a lot of sense. As @lionel-nj mentioned, I'd be interested to look at what would be the best threshold to use.
Would it be possible to make a 1-D plot showing values of distances between coordinates for all pairs of shape points that have the same shape_dist_traveled (and same shape_id) in order to see what threshold would capture all those rounded values?
We can't play too much with the datasets yet at MobilityData because we don't have an API yet 😭

Are there datasets that contain two shape points with the same coordinates and different values for shape_dist_traveled in shapes.txt? Should we also flag this?

evansiroky · 2021-12-29T17:11:56Z

Would it be more clear for our users if we had two distinct rules for EqualShapeDistanceNotice for the two cases we have here?

Again, keeping in mind that soon, users will be able to upgrade or downgrade a notice. My initial feeling is that it might be more clear to have two distinct notices for different severity levels, even if part of the code is the same. I'd love to hear your thoughts here @evansiroky and @botanize.

I'm in favor of having two distinct rules with different error levels.

Here are other options we could look at:

option 1:

DecreasingOrEqualShapeDistanceNotice (ERROR): when shape_dist_traveled values are decreasing OR (when they are equal AND coordinates are different)

EqualShapeDistanceNotice (WARNING): when shape_dist_traveled values are equal AND coordinates are equal

option 2:

DecreasingShapeDistanceNotice (ERROR)

EqualShapeDistanceDiffCoordinatesNotice (ERROR)

EqualShapeDistanceSameCoordinatesNotice (WARNING)

I like option 2.

Do we have the same problem for DecreasingOrEqualStopTimeDistanceNotice?

I suppose this could technically be OK in a 3-dimensional sense if there was a transit vehicle that traveled along a pattern that involved an elevator with different "stops" at different levels. However, I don't think that currently exists anywhere yet, so it may be best to keep this as an error.

About what we consider as "same coordinates"

It would be great if this check here could return true if the coordinates are less than 1 meter apart.

This makes a lot of sense. Like @lionel-nj mentioned, I'd be interested to look at what would be the best threshold to use. Would it be possible to make a 1-D plot showing values of distances between coordinates for all pairs of shape points that have the same shape_dist_traveled (and same shape_id) in order to see what threshold would capture all those rounded values? We can't play too much with the datasets yet at MobilityData because we don't have an API yet 😭

I'll defer to @barbeau's expertise here.

Are they datasets that contain two shape points with the same coordinates and different values for shape_dist_traveled in shapes.txt? Should we also flag this?

Yes, this should be an error, but I'd be surprised if it occurred in the wild.

barbeau · 2022-01-03T17:42:30Z

Would it be possible to make a 1-D plot showing values of distances between coordinates for all pairs of shape points that have the same shape_dist_traveled (and same shape_id) in order to see what threshold would capture all those rounded values?

This would be ideal (i.e., create the threshold based on a percentile based on real data), but to my knowledge not easy to calculate at the moment without a lot of manual effort.

One way to approach this is based on precision of decimal places for latitude and longitude. From http://wiki.gis.com/wiki/index.php/Decimal_degrees:

decimal places	degrees	distance
0	1.0	111 km
1	0.1	11.1 km
2	0.01	1.11 km
3	0.001	111 m
4	0.0001	11.1 m
5	0.00001	1.11 m
6	0.000001	0.111 m
7	0.0000001	1.11 cm
8	0.00000001	1.11 mm

So, if you cap the number of decimal places to 5 the smallest difference between values you can represent is 1.11 meters. Therefore, it would be possible for two values less than 1.11 meters apart to be capped/rounded to the same latitude and longitude value.

So perhaps 1.11 meters is a good value? That should capture any "same" values that result from precision/rounding issues at 5 decimal places. That's also better accuracy that you'd typically see with an off-the-shelf consumer-grade GNSS unit capturing a vehicle path in motion.

botanize · 2022-01-04T19:57:42Z

Here are other options we could look at:

option 2:

DecreasingShapeDistanceNotice (ERROR)

EqualShapeDistanceDiffCoordinatesNotice (ERROR)

EqualShapeDistanceSameCoordinatesNotice (WARNING)

I prefer option 2 here.

Do we have the same problem for DecreasingOrEqualStopTimeDistanceNotice?

We have historically scheduled holds at stops as two consecutive departures from the same stop, so those would have shown up as equal distance in stop_times. I believe we now schedule those holds as actual holds with arrival and departure times or post-process them to merge the pair of stops into an arrival and departure time for one stop. The spec seems to allow our old practice, so we'd expect that equal stop time distances would be allowed, if not encouraged.

About what we consider as "same coordinates"

1.11 m is fine, but realistically, anything less that 13 m (length of our regular buses) is basically the same from an operations perspective.

Are they datasets that contain two shape points with the same coordinates and different values for shape_dist_traveled in shapes.txt? Should we also flag this?

If the shape contains a loop then you could definitely have two different shape points with the same coordinates and different shape_dist_traveled values. I don't think you'd want to flag that, unless you had some way of detecting invalid looping.

isabelle-dr · 2022-01-06T12:53:05Z

Thanks for the comments on this PR 🙏

If the shape contains a loop then you could definitely have two different shape points with the same coordinates and different shape_dist_traveled values. I don't think you'd want to flag that, unless you had some way of detecting invalid looping.

Good point. I was thinking of consecutive stops there, which would be an error I think. Let's keep this as a potential candidate for later if we see a need.

We have historically scheduled holds at stops as two consecutive departures from the same stop, so those would have shown up as equal distance in stop_times. I believe we now schedule those holds as actual holds with arrival and departure times or post-process them to merge the pair of stops into an arrival and departure time for one stop. The spec seems to allow our old practice, so we'd expect that equal stop time distances would be allowed, if not encouraged.

Opened #1084 to follow up.

So in conclusion, we agree on the option 2:

DecreasingShapeDistanceNotice as an ERROR
EqualShapeDistanceDiffCoordinatesNotice as an ERROR
- consider as "different coordinates" pairs of lat/long that are more than 1,11 meters apart and see how many datasets would trigger this notice after the addition of this threshold (currently 108 datasets with no threshold). Do a quick inspection if needed, decide from there if the threshold seems acceptable).
EqualShapeDistanceSameCoordinatesNotice as a WARNING
- @botanize @evansiroky, I'm in favour of not using the threshold so the rule flags a "truly" duplicative record (i. e. pairs of lat/long that are less than 1,11 meters apart would NOT be considered equal in this context). Are you OK with this?

- create EqualShapeDistanceSameCoordinatesNotice - create EqualShapeDistanceDiffCoordinatesNotice - update docstrings

github-actions · 2022-01-10T17:01:11Z

Thank you for this contribution! 🍰✨🦄

Information about source corruption

0 out of 1248 sources are corrupted.

Acceptance test details

Due to changes in this pull request, the following validation rules trigger new errors:

Download the full acceptance test report for commit f8519a2 here (report will disappear after 90 days).

github-actions · 2022-01-10T19:27:00Z

Thank you for this contribution! 🍰✨🦄

Information about source corruption

0 out of 1248 sources are corrupted.

Acceptance test details

Due to changes in this pull request, the following validation rules trigger new errors:

Download the full acceptance test report for commit a636f19 here (report will disappear after 90 days).

- update unit tests

...src/main/java/org/mobilitydata/gtfsvalidator/validator/ShapeIncreasingDistanceValidator.java

botanize · 2022-01-10T19:50:17Z

...src/main/java/org/mobilitydata/gtfsvalidator/validator/ShapeIncreasingDistanceValidator.java

    return shape.shapePtLon() != otherShape.shapePtLon()
        && shape.shapePtLat() != otherShape.shapePtLat()


You can have different coordinates while either lon XOR lat is identical. Shouldn't this be !(shape.shapePtLon() == otherShape.shapePtLon() && shape.shapePtLat() == otherShape.shapePtLat())

Shouldn't this be !(shape.shapePtLon() == otherShape.shapePtLon() && shape.shapePtLat() == otherShape.shapePtLat())

Thanks for flagging that! Modified in 574cd7b.

botanize · 2022-01-10T19:55:41Z

...src/main/java/org/mobilitydata/gtfsvalidator/validator/ShapeIncreasingDistanceValidator.java

+          if (MAX_DISTANCE_SHAPEPOINTS_METERS
+              < getDistanceMeters(curr.shapePtLatLon(), prev.shapePtLatLon())) {
+            noticeContainer.addValidationNotice(
+                new EqualShapeDistanceDiffCoordinatesNotice(prev, curr));
+          }
+        } else if (curr.shapePtLat() == prev.shapePtLat()
+            && curr.shapePtLon() == prev.shapePtLon()) {
+          // equal shape_dist_traveled and same coordinates
          noticeContainer.addValidationNotice(
-              new DecreasingOrEqualShapeDistanceNotice(
-                  curr.shapeId(),
-                  curr.csvRowNumber(),
-                  curr.shapeDistTraveled(),
-                  curr.shapePtSequence(),
-                  prev.csvRowNumber(),
-                  prev.shapeDistTraveled(),
-                  prev.shapePtSequence()));
+              new EqualShapeDistanceSameCoordinatesNotice(prev, curr));


What if coordinates are different and getDistanceMeters(curr.shapePtLatLon(), prev.shapePtLatLon()) <= MAX_DISTANCE_SHAPEPOINTS_METERS ?

In this case, no notice should be triggered, see:

gtfs-validator/main/src/test/java/org/mobilitydata/gtfsvalidator/validator/ShapeIncreasingDistanceValidatorTest.java

Line 103 in 737adab

public void shapeWithEqualDistance_closeGpsCoordinates_shouldNotGenerateNotice() {

github-actions · 2022-01-10T20:17:07Z

Thank you for this contribution! 🍰✨🦄

Information about source corruption

0 out of 1248 sources are corrupted.

Acceptance test details

Due to changes in this pull request, the following validation rules trigger new errors:

Download the full acceptance test report for commit e03811f here (report will disappear after 90 days).

github-actions · 2022-01-10T21:24:45Z

Thank you for this contribution! 🍰✨🦄

Information about source corruption

0 out of 1248 sources are corrupted.

Acceptance test details

Due to changes in this pull request, the following validation rules trigger new errors:

Download the full acceptance test report for commit 9f0b8c0 here (report will disappear after 90 days).

github-actions · 2022-01-18T19:27:48Z

This contribution does not follow the conventions set by the Google Java style guide. Please run the following command line at the root of the project to fix formatting errors: ./gradlew goJF.

github-actions · 2022-01-18T19:49:39Z

Thank you for this contribution! 🍰✨🦄

Information about source corruption

0 out of 1248 sources are corrupted.

Acceptance test details

Due to changes in this pull request, the following validation rules trigger new errors:

Download the full acceptance test report for commit 5348ed0 here (report will disappear after 90 days).

maximearmstrong

Some questions and comments in-line before approval :)

RULES.md

.../main/java/org/mobilitydata/gtfsvalidator/validator/StopTimeIncreasingDistanceValidator.java

...src/main/java/org/mobilitydata/gtfsvalidator/validator/ShapeIncreasingDistanceValidator.java

Co-authored-by: Maxime Armstrong <[email protected]>

…ilityData/gtfs-validator into fix-ShapeIncreasingDistanceValidator

github-actions · 2022-01-21T14:39:12Z

This contribution does not follow the conventions set by the Google Java style guide. Please run the following command line at the root of the project to fix formatting errors: ./gradlew goJF.

.../main/java/org/mobilitydata/gtfsvalidator/validator/StopTimeIncreasingDistanceValidator.java

github-actions · 2022-01-21T15:15:05Z

Thank you for this contribution! 🍰✨🦄

Information about source corruption

0 out of 1248 sources are corrupted.

Acceptance test details

Due to changes in this pull request, the following validation rules trigger new errors:

Download the full acceptance test report for commit e80cee0 here (report will disappear after 90 days).

RULES.md

maximearmstrong

LGTM!

maximearmstrong · 2022-01-24T19:59:59Z

...test/java/org/mobilitydata/gtfsvalidator/validator/ShapeIncreasingDistanceValidatorTest.java

+  }
+
+  @Test
+  public void noShapeDistTravelled_shouldNotGenerateNotice() {


Great addition 🚀

lionel-nj · 2022-01-25T19:54:18Z

Thank you for your contribution ! @evansiroky @botanize @maximearmstrong @isabelle-dr

barbeau · 2022-01-28T16:04:10Z

...test/java/org/mobilitydata/gtfsvalidator/validator/ShapeIncreasingDistanceValidatorTest.java

@@ -34,7 +36,7 @@ public static GtfsShape createShapePoint(
      double shapePtLat,
      double shapePtLon,
      int shapePtSequence,
-      double shapeDistTraveled) {
+      Double shapeDistTraveled) {


Sorry for coming in late here, but is there a reason this was changed from double to Double?

This was done in order to support testing agains null value.

lionel-nj added 2 commits December 22, 2021 12:05

fix(ShapeIncreasingDistanceValidator): change rule logic

e8e93dc

- additional unit test - update documentation to match latest development

apply goJF

d7c3795

lionel-nj requested review from asvechnikov2, barbeau and maximearmstrong December 22, 2021 16:11

lionel-nj self-assigned this Dec 22, 2021

lionel-nj requested a review from isabelle-dr December 22, 2021 16:13

evansiroky reviewed Dec 22, 2021

View reviewed changes

botanize reviewed Dec 22, 2021

View reviewed changes

apply 1 meter threshold

ca1e532

- additional unit test - update documentation to match latest development

isabelle-dr mentioned this pull request Jan 6, 2022

Modify DecreasingOrEqualStopTimeDistanceNotice #1084

Open

isabelle-dr modified the milestones: v3.0.1, v3.0.1 - solving problems with errors Jan 9, 2022

lionel-nj added 2 commits January 10, 2022 09:24

Merge branch 'master' into fix-ShapeIncreasingDistanceValidator

4baa553

apply code review suggestions

308631b

- create EqualShapeDistanceSameCoordinatesNotice - create EqualShapeDistanceDiffCoordinatesNotice - update docstrings

modify rule logic and update documentation

cff81ed

refine rule logic

737adab

- update unit tests

botanize reviewed Jan 10, 2022

View reviewed changes

lionel-nj added 2 commits January 10, 2022 16:46

remove unused method

cbf9e79

modify rule logic

574cd7b

format code ð

54242ea

maximearmstrong suggested changes Jan 21, 2022

View reviewed changes

lionel-nj and others added 6 commits January 21, 2022 10:28

modify rule logic

2a2f13f

remove changes on StopTimeIncreasingDistanceValidator

e1be2fa

additional unit test

11ba8b6

clarify documentation

29fd823

apply suggestions from code review [acceptance test skip]

3b91380

Co-authored-by: Maxime Armstrong <[email protected]>

Merge branch 'fix-ShapeIncreasingDistanceValidator' of github.com:Mob…

0ee67a7

…ilityData/gtfs-validator into fix-ShapeIncreasingDistanceValidator

lionel-nj commented Jan 21, 2022

View reviewed changes

.../main/java/org/mobilitydata/gtfsvalidator/validator/StopTimeIncreasingDistanceValidator.java Show resolved Hide resolved

format code

e36a9c8

MobilityData deleted a comment from github-actions bot Jan 21, 2022

lionel-nj requested a review from maximearmstrong January 21, 2022 15:15

doc updates [acceptance test skip]

757df8b

isabelle-dr added this to the v3.0.1 - solving problems with errors milestone Jan 24, 2022

isabelle-dr approved these changes Jan 24, 2022

View reviewed changes

RULES.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

RULES.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

RULES.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

RULES.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

doc updates [acceptance test skip]

bd48299

maximearmstrong approved these changes Jan 25, 2022

View reviewed changes

lionel-nj merged commit 1a9ce3a into master Jan 25, 2022

lionel-nj deleted the fix-ShapeIncreasingDistanceValidator branch January 25, 2022 19:54

barbeau reviewed Jan 28, 2022

View reviewed changes

barbeau mentioned this pull request Feb 1, 2022

Acceptance tests fail for PR opened from forked repository #1094

Closed

isabelle-dr mentioned this pull request Aug 10, 2022

Improve acceptance rules #1232

Closed

isabelle-dr mentioned this pull request Sep 19, 2022

Potential false positives for equal_shape_distance_diff_coordinates #1258

Closed

This was referenced Jan 10, 2024

Test setting threshold of 1.11m on equal_shape_dist_diff_coordinates #1638

Closed

Implement threshold for triggering trip_distance_exceeds_shape_distance #1613

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix: ShapeIncreasingDistanceValidator #1083

fix: ShapeIncreasingDistanceValidator #1083

lionel-nj commented Dec 22, 2021 •

edited

Loading

evansiroky Dec 22, 2021

lionel-nj Dec 23, 2021

evansiroky Dec 29, 2021

botanize Dec 22, 2021

botanize Dec 22, 2021

lionel-nj Dec 23, 2021 •

edited

Loading

lionel-nj commented Dec 23, 2021 •

edited

Loading

isabelle-dr commented Dec 23, 2021 •

edited

Loading

evansiroky commented Dec 29, 2021

barbeau commented Jan 3, 2022

botanize commented Jan 4, 2022

isabelle-dr commented Jan 6, 2022 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Jan 10, 2022

github-actions bot commented Jan 10, 2022

botanize Jan 10, 2022

lionel-nj Jan 10, 2022

botanize Jan 10, 2022

lionel-nj Jan 10, 2022

github-actions bot commented Jan 10, 2022

github-actions bot commented Jan 10, 2022

github-actions bot commented Jan 18, 2022

github-actions bot commented Jan 18, 2022

maximearmstrong left a comment

github-actions bot commented Jan 21, 2022

github-actions bot commented Jan 21, 2022

maximearmstrong left a comment

maximearmstrong Jan 24, 2022

lionel-nj commented Jan 25, 2022

barbeau Jan 28, 2022

lionel-nj Feb 8, 2022

		return shape.shapePtLon() == otherShape.shapePtLon()
		&& shape.shapePtLat() == otherShape.shapePtLat();


		<a name="EqualShapeDistanceNotice"/>

		When sorted by `shape.shape_pt_sequence`, two consecutive shape points must not have equal values for `shape_dist_traveled` if their GPS coordinates are the same.

	if (i > maxExportsPerNoticeTypeAndSeverity) {
	// Do not export too many notices for this type.
	break;
	}

		return shape.shapePtLon() != otherShape.shapePtLon()
		&& shape.shapePtLat() != otherShape.shapePtLat()

fix: ShapeIncreasingDistanceValidator #1083

fix: ShapeIncreasingDistanceValidator #1083

Conversation

lionel-nj commented Dec 22, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lionel-nj Dec 23, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lionel-nj commented Dec 23, 2021 • edited Loading

isabelle-dr commented Dec 23, 2021 • edited Loading

evansiroky commented Dec 29, 2021

barbeau commented Jan 3, 2022

botanize commented Jan 4, 2022

isabelle-dr commented Jan 6, 2022 • edited Loading

github-actions bot commented Jan 10, 2022

Information about source corruption

Acceptance test details

github-actions bot commented Jan 10, 2022

Information about source corruption

Acceptance test details

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

github-actions bot commented Jan 10, 2022

Information about source corruption

Acceptance test details

github-actions bot commented Jan 10, 2022

Information about source corruption

Acceptance test details

github-actions bot commented Jan 18, 2022

github-actions bot commented Jan 18, 2022

Information about source corruption

Acceptance test details

maximearmstrong left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

github-actions bot commented Jan 21, 2022

github-actions bot commented Jan 21, 2022

Information about source corruption

Acceptance test details

maximearmstrong left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lionel-nj commented Jan 25, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lionel-nj commented Dec 22, 2021 •

edited

Loading

lionel-nj Dec 23, 2021 •

edited

Loading

lionel-nj commented Dec 23, 2021 •

edited

Loading

isabelle-dr commented Dec 23, 2021 •

edited

Loading

isabelle-dr commented Jan 6, 2022 •

edited

Loading