Add linked station

[tigroo]

No test, we provide a new optional field linked station id.

[ymorin-orange]

This is a minor, backward compatible evolution, so the minor version should be updated, not the patchlevel, so it should be 2.4.0.

[tigroo]

ok...even I don't see even we could get a 2.3.1 with your vision of the release maangement on a json schema file (except maybe a fix on a comment).

[ymorin-orange]

I think it would be better is that were an array rather than a single object. Indeed, there are tractors that may have two (or more!) trailers; for example

Also, for platooning, there might be a bunch of following trucks, so the head of the platoon would need to link to all the trucks that follows it (and individual trucks may also want to link to their own followers.

Do we also want to identify the type of link: following or leading?

{
  "linked_station_ids": {
    "type": "array",
    "description": "list of following or leading stations IDs",
    "minItems": 1,
    "items": {
      "type": "object",
      "description": "Linked station",
      "required": ["station_id"],
      "properties": {
        "station_id": {
          "type": "integer",
          "description": "Identifier for a linked ITS-S, as a trailer or a platooning pair.",
          "minimum": 0,
          "maximum": 4294967295,
          "examples": [
            4294967295,
            42
          ]
        },
        "relation": {
          "type": "string",
          "description": "how the linked station relates to this one",
          "enum": [
            "trailer",
            "tractor",
            "platoon"
          ]
        },
        "order": {
          "type": "string",
          "description": "whether the linked station trails or leads this one",
          "enum": [
            "trails",
            "leads",
          ]
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

[tigroo]

no type and only one linked station id for our first test of the concept : as minimal and simple as possible.
We'll challenge the one to one link with one to many AND/OR attached type to not read the other cam (so duplication for simplification) after another discussion and exchange with all the team. You can create 2 other issues for if you want @ymorin-orange of course ;).

[ymorin-orange]

• change the version to 2.4.0
• maybe extend the schema to allow for more flexibility in the relationship description, as suggested in the comment