feat: added `forbidden_prior_day_booking_field_value`, `invalid_prior_notice_duration_min` and `forbidden_prior_notice_start_day` notices

[cka-y]

Summary:

This PR introduces three new validation notices: forbidden_prior_day_booking_field_value, invalid_prior_notice_duration_min, and forbidden_prior_notice_start_day.

• forbidden_prior_day_booking_field_value:

  • Error Logic:
  • Trigger when booking_type = 2 and either prior_notice_duration_min or prior_notice_duration_max is present.

• invalid_prior_notice_duration_min:

  • Error Logic:
  • Trigger when prior_notice_duration_min is greater than prior_notice_duration_max.

• forbidden_prior_notice_start_day:

  • Error Logic:
  • Trigger when prior_notice_start_day is defined and prior_notice_duration_max is also defined.

Expected Behavior:

A validation notice with ERROR severity is generated when any of the above conditions are met for each specific notice.

Using this modified feed, the following validation results were obtained:

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

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

[github-actions[bot]]

📝 Acceptance Test Report

📋 Summary

✅ The rule acceptance has passed for commit 208afa452a32d54eef9f5df21fd4013f14f72143 Download the full acceptance test report here (report will disappear after 90 days).

📊 Notices Comparison

New Errors (0 out of 1588 datasets, ~0%) ✅

No changes were detected due to the code change.

Dropped Errors (0 out of 1588 datasets, ~0%) ✅

No changes were detected due to the code change.

New Warnings (0 out of 1588 datasets, ~0%) ✅

No changes were detected due to the code change.

Dropped Warnings (0 out of 1588 datasets, ~0%) ✅

No changes were detected due to the code change.

🛡️ Corruption Check

0 out of 1588 sources (~0 %) are corrupted.

⏱️ Performance Assessment

📈 Validation Time

Assess the performance in terms of seconds taken for the validation process.

| Time Metric | Dataset ID | Reference (s) | Latest (s) | Difference (s) | |-----------------------------|-------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------| | Average | -- | 4.06 | 4.11 | ⬆️+0.05 | | Median | -- | 1.40 | 1.45 | ⬆️+0.05 | | Standard Deviation | -- | 11.61 | 11.61 | ⬇️-0.00 | | Minimum in References Reports | us-california-city-of-wasco-gtfs-1788 | 0.50 | 0.53 | ⬆️+0.03 | | Maximum in Reference Reports | gb-unknown-uk-aggregate-feed-gtfs-2014 | 292.43 | 291.18 | ⬇️-1.25 | | Minimum in Latest Reports | us-oregon-hut-airport-shuttle-gtfs-635 | 0.54 | 0.52 | ⬇️-0.02 | | Maximum in Latest Reports | gb-unknown-uk-aggregate-feed-gtfs-2014 | 292.43 | 291.18 | ⬇️-1.25 |

[emmambd]

@cka-y On a QA side, works as expected!

[emmambd]

@cka-y For forbidden_prior_notice_start_day, I just realized the "invalid value" language might be confusing, since the field itself is forbidden in cases where prior_notice_duration_max is provided, not just that there's an invalid specific inputted value for it.

Suggested change: "prior_notice_start_day is forbidden when prior_notice_duration_max is set"

[cka-y]

done @emmambd -- waiting for @tzujenchanmbd approval before merging

[tzujenchanmbd]

LGTM on columns displayed, notice names, and description.

[github-actions[bot]]

📝 Acceptance Test Report

📋 Summary

✅ The rule acceptance has passed for commit 566fa52d8d72236bb79346181abb7db8b49ec87e Download the full acceptance test report here (report will disappear after 90 days).

📊 Notices Comparison

New Errors (0 out of 1588 datasets, ~0%) ✅

No changes were detected due to the code change.

Dropped Errors (0 out of 1588 datasets, ~0%) ✅

No changes were detected due to the code change.

New Warnings (0 out of 1588 datasets, ~0%) ✅

No changes were detected due to the code change.

Dropped Warnings (0 out of 1588 datasets, ~0%) ✅

No changes were detected due to the code change.

🛡️ Corruption Check

0 out of 1588 sources (~0 %) are corrupted.

⏱️ Performance Assessment

📈 Validation Time

Assess the performance in terms of seconds taken for the validation process.

| Time Metric | Dataset ID | Reference (s) | Latest (s) | Difference (s) | |-----------------------------|-------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------| | Average | -- | 4.10 | 4.19 | ⬆️+0.08 | | Median | -- | 1.46 | 1.51 | ⬆️+0.05 | | Standard Deviation | -- | 11.63 | 11.60 | ⬇️-0.02 | | Minimum in References Reports | au-tasmania-merseylink-gtfs-1251 | 0.52 | 0.60 | ⬆️+0.08 | | Maximum in Reference Reports | gb-unknown-uk-aggregate-feed-gtfs-2014 | 294.81 | 291.40 | ⬇️-3.41 | | Minimum in Latest Reports | ar-buenos-aires-subterraneos-de-buenos-aires-subte-gtfs-6 | 0.58 | 0.54 | ⬇️-0.04 | | Maximum in Latest Reports | gb-unknown-uk-aggregate-feed-gtfs-2014 | 294.81 | 291.40 | ⬇️-3.41 |