Validation issue prioritization

[evansiroky]

Checklist

• Appropriate branch selected (all PRs must first be merged to dev before they can be merged to master)
• Any modified or new methods or classes have helpful JSDoc and code is thoroughly commented
• The description lists all applicable issues this PR seeks to resolve
• The description lists any configuration setting(s) that differ from the default settings
• All tests and CI builds passing

Description

This PR seeks to fix #477 by modifying the version validation error viewer in two ways:

• it will sort errors based off of priority level and then alphabetically
• it shows different icons based on error severity

This PR depends on the ibi-group/datatools-server#275 PR to datatools-server that uses the version of gtfs-lib that includes the graphQL changes.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #527 into dev will decrease coverage by 25.83%.
The diff coverage is 10.16%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev     #527       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   41.82%   15.99%   -25.84%     
===========================================
  Files         314      314               
  Lines       17072    16021     -1051     
  Branches     5211     4889      -322     
===========================================
- Hits         7141     2562     -4579     
- Misses       8645    11482     +2837     
- Partials     1286     1977      +691

Flag	Coverage Δ
#end_to_end_tests	?
#unit_tests	15.99% <10.16%> (-0.03%)	⬇️

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
lib/manager/actions/versions.js	12.39% <ø> (-43.58%)	⬇️
lib/types/index.js	0% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
...ager/components/validation/GtfsValidationViewer.js	0% <0%> (-1.06%)	⬇️
...ib/manager/components/version/FeedVersionViewer.js	0% <0%> (-34.94%)	⬇️
...nager/components/validation/ValidationErrorItem.js	0% <0%> (ø)	⬆️
lib/manager/util/version.js	30.88% <16%> (-29.59%)	⬇️
lib/common/util/config.js	70.9% <66.66%> (-9.1%)	⬇️
lib/manager/components/validation/TripsChart.js	0% <0%> (-80.4%)	⬇️
...nager/components/validation/ServicePerModeChart.js	0% <0%> (-78.27%)	⬇️
lib/manager/components/HomeProjectDropdown.js	0% <0%> (-75.76%)	⬇️
... and 260 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 477f0b7...0bcf59c. Read the comment docs.

[landonreed]

👏, nice work and thanks for taking this on!

I have uploaded a few different feeds of varying quality to see how this looks for each. Here are some comments for each:

SEPTA Rail link

• in list group buttons we may need an indication of if there are any high priority issues. We have a 'critical' warning if the feed basically entirely breaks stuff, but we may need to soften this to also apply to HIGH priority issues as well (or at least provide another level)
• might be good to have a sort button? That's maybe just a nice to have.
• contrast for medium priority issue count is too low/hard to read
• I would expect black or dark blue color text for 'low' priority
  

Feed missing required files (e.g., stop_times, trips)

• With this feed, I noticed that the Missing required table issue does not rise to the level of high, which makes me think we need to audit the priority levels in gtfs-lib and make some adjustments. Issues that would break OTP should probably register as HIGH priority. We can tackle that in a separate issue.
• Notice also, that there is a BLOCKING tag below. This is for MTC issues that prevent publication because they break things downstream. We should consider whether we want to use this kind of visual language and structure in the code elsewhere.
  

Uploaded zipped shapefile (just to see what happens)

• I uploaded a zipped shapefile just to see what happens and the issues are not nearly as scary as I would expect (or want) them to be
• Again, I think this just highlights that Missing Table needs to be escalated AND that the summary indicator on the left should probably reflect the high priority/critical issues found.
  

[binh-dam-ibigroup]

The way it is depicted in Landon's post might suggest there could be, within one category, there might be critical issues and less critical issues (e.g. 50 critical unused stops and 214 less critical stops).
I would place the icon to the left of the text to avoid that confusion (keep the count to the right).

[landonreed]

@binh-dam-ibigroup, I don't 100% follow the comment, but here's what it looks like with the icons on the right. I think it does look better, but I'm not crazy about the overall look. I'm wondering if there's a better way to format all of this.

[evansiroky]

Other PRs have been merged in. Good to go, @landonreed?

[landonreed]

🎉 This PR is included in version 4.1.0 🎉

The release is available on GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀