Distinct coach from bus when reading in GTFS data and in GTFS GraphQL API

[miklcct]

Summary

The GTFS specification does not have official support for coach services (as distinct from bus services). This add support for coach services, which changes the behavior as follow:

• GTFS extended route types 200 to 299 are imported as coach services instead of bus services
• When the plan field in the GTFS GraphQL API is called with BUS mode, only bus services are returned, whereas the current behavior, kept when the feature flag is off by default, is that bus and coach services are both returned in the itineraries.

In addition, this fixes an API error Exception while fetching data (/plan) : Qualified mode is not valid: 'COACH', details: No enum constant org.opentripplanner.api.parameter.ApiRequestMode.COACH when I attempt to specify COACH as a mode as an argument in the plan field.

This replaces #6086 for bus and coach services, without the change for the legacy REST API which has since been moved to the sandbox (I can put it back if desired).

Issue

Fixes #5550

Unit tests

Added for bus and coach

Documentation

Added

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 69.75%. Comparing base (ee53e50) to head (13949af).
Report is 43 commits behind head on dev-2.x.

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             dev-2.x    #6171      +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage      69.91%   69.75%   -0.17%     
+ Complexity     17736    17652      -84     
=============================================
  Files           2006     2006              
  Lines          75526    75525       -1     
  Branches        7730     7731       +1     
=============================================
- Hits           52804    52679     -125     
- Misses         20036    20134      +98     
- Partials        2686     2712      +26     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[optionsome]

I think @leonardehrenfried already checked that coaches are not used in his deployments. I have now also checked that these are not used in ours. @flaktack are these used in any of yours? If no one opposed the idea, I think we could apply these changes even without the feature flag.

[flaktack]

We are for applying this without a feature flag. It is a reasonable change (bus is bus, coach is coach) which we've also done locally.

[leonardehrenfried]

I can confirm that I don't need a feature flag.

[miklcct]

We are for applying this without a feature flag. It is a reasonable change (bus is bus, coach is coach) which we've also done locally.

Does this PR pose any incompatibilities with your local changes?

[flaktack]

Does this PR pose any incompatibilities with your local changes?

No, merging this as-is or without the features flag is OK with us.

[leonardehrenfried]

Just remove the import and this is good to go.

[optionsome]

Should we also edit TraverseMode#fromTransitMode? I'm a bit unsure what would be the effect of it. Seemingly Transmodel API also has this situation where COACH mode is replaced by BUS at least in one place.

[optionsome]

Should we also edit TraverseMode#fromTransitMode? I'm a bit unsure what would be the effect of it. Seemingly Transmodel API also has this situation where COACH mode is replaced by BUS at least in one place.

Ignore this comment, I just realized the branch I was on used really old version of otp2 where there was transit mode stuff in TraverseMode as well.