Closed mjkillough closed 5 years ago
In re-working this, I wanted to depend on the error handling introduced #7. The changes for this PR are in their own commit, bcb78d1f5670637f9c23b1a6987c0b47df177b53.
OK! Hopefully I've gotten this a little closer, but please do let me know if you'd like further changes.
There really is no rush for this. I really appreicate you taking the time to provide such detailed feedback, especially as this isn't something you're actively maintaining! ❤️
Looks good; there's the pointer vs. ref thingy but then I think we can merge this in.
Do you want me to merge this pull request in and then close the other one, since you are pulling in the other pull request's commit. Or merge the other pull request in first, then rebase this one on master, and then merge this one in?
Do you want me to merge this pull request in and then close the other one, since you are pulling in the other pull request's commit. Or merge the other pull request in first, then rebase this one on master, and then merge this one in?
I'm happy for you to close the other one and merge this one in. I think GitHub might actually be smart enough to close both once you merge this. 🙂
Add the ability to specify whether the table should be annotated with distance and/or duration, as well as a new API for returning the distance. This is done in a way that allows us to return errors for unrouteable routes (where
null
is returned in the JSON), as in #7.I'm not 100% sure of the use of
stdbool
in a FFI interface - it's been a while since I had to write C!