Describe the problem
The naming conventions for conditionally required rules are inconsistent.
Some rules use the missing_* prefix (e.g., missing_feed_info_date), while others use the without pattern (e.g., stop_without_location).
Although they represent the same concept, their inconsistent naming makes it harder to:
-
search for related rules (e.g., searching for “missing” won’t surface stop_without_location),
-
understand grouping and intent,
-
maintain or update rule definitions consistently.
This discrepancy creates ambiguity and slows down navigation across the rule definitions.
Suggest a fix or an alternative
stop_without_location could be renamed to missing_stop_location to align with the “missing” pattern or conversely, missing_feed_info_date could be renamed to feed_info_without_date to align with the “without” pattern.
Describe the problem
The naming conventions for conditionally required rules are inconsistent.
Some rules use the missing_* prefix (e.g., missing_feed_info_date), while others use the without pattern (e.g., stop_without_location).
Although they represent the same concept, their inconsistent naming makes it harder to:
search for related rules (e.g., searching for “missing” won’t surface stop_without_location),
understand grouping and intent,
maintain or update rule definitions consistently.
This discrepancy creates ambiguity and slows down navigation across the rule definitions.
Suggest a fix or an alternative
stop_without_locationcould be renamed tomissing_stop_locationto align with the “missing” pattern or conversely,missing_feed_info_datecould be renamed tofeed_info_without_dateto align with the “without” pattern.