-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 50
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Back-end - Display when a driver has available seats after a trip is assigned (or is willing to make multiple trips) #389
Comments
I've some ideas for this that aren't too difficult to implement and work with the system as it is now EDIT: these ideas have been added, see comments below |
Situation 1 - a driver with more than one seat available can be handled manually or by the system. Manual method - after a match is made, the operator can re-enter the driver details with the remaining seats (a hassle for the operator, true) System method - this could be done automatically or through an operator page notification in this way: the entry in the driver table could be updated after a match is accepted to adjust the seat count to be the amount needed by the rider. A new driver entry (with a new uuid) can be created with the seat count as the remaining seats. This method also makes it possible for driver or operator to ignore or cancel the second or later rides without cancelling the first (although confusion is possible, perhaps) |
Situation 2 - somewhat thinking aloud on this one but it seems possible to do this by simply changing some text on the front-end (especially now the operator is directing the system) if the method for Situation 1 is adopted. If the text is changed to suggest that the Seat count field represents either the precise seat count or a willingness to make multiple trips, the system will behave in a sensible and predictable way in both situations. There are two big benefits here. 1) there are mininum system changes - less dev time and less testing 2) the driver is put in clear control of the situation by their own choices. For me, the latter is especially important. I am aware that other volunteers on Carpool Vote are keen to encourage drivers to make multiple trips (c.f. the related issues reference in a comment above) and it is certainly true that many drivers want to help as many riders as possible. However, this may not be true of all drivers, and other drivers may be willing but confused by multiple proposed rides without a clear explanation. |
Could we allow the driver to accept the additional riders and/or trips between the Example: If the option is not selected (i.e., box not checked), the driver will be matched to the first rider location available and then removed from availability. Example: Scenario 1 - Two or more separate riders (or rider groups) sign up at the same time. This could result in the driver combining both riders in a single trip (assuming the rider locations are convenient for the driver), or in transporting one set of riders from their pickup location to their destination and then returning to retrieve other matched riders. If the driver has selected the option to accept multiple trips/locations, the driver now can decided for him/her/themself how to map out the trip(s) and which of the riders to accept. Scenario 2 - Two or more separate riders (or rider groups) in the same area sign up for different times. If the driver has selected the option for multiple trips, both would appear on the driver's list, and the driver would have the option of accepting multiple trips. Really not much different from Scenario 1. In either Scenario, this would give control to the driver to decide best how to volunteer. |
Fixed by #410 and voteamerica/backend#234 @stephenscapelliti it seems the system continues to propose matches to a driver after a match is confirmed, so that handles that part of things. I've updated the operator page to show details for a driver with multiple matches, available seats etc. However, a useful discussion to keep in the |
There is an existing issue about new functionality #359 but this feature is not specified thereEDIT: this original comment is more of a distraction, so has been struck out
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: