fix: make stop_without_zone_id conditional on fare rule type

[ghost]

Summary:

Resolves #1663 by updating StopZoneIdValidator to issue notice about a stop without zone_id defined only when the stop is contained in a trip contained in a route defined in a fare rule with zone fields defined. Change from previous logic which warned about stops without zone_id defined if any fare rules had zone fields defined.

• The warning is still only triggered for stops where location_type is 0.
• Zone fields in fare_rules.txt are origin_id, destination_id, and contains_id.
• Adds tests to StopZoneIdValidatorTest to confirm expected behavior as described below.

Expected behavior:

If a stop of location_type 0 does not have a zone_id defined, and that stop is defined as part of a trip in stop_times.txt, and that trip is defined as part of a route in trips.txt, and that route is defined in a fare rule in fare_rules.txt, and that fare rule has any of origin_id, destination_id, or contains_id defined, then a stop_without_zone_id notice is issued.

Exactly one notice is issued per stop that meets the criteria to issue a notice even if that stop meets the notice criteria through multiple combinations of trips, routes, and fare rules.

The notice is never issued if a stop has a zone_id defined, even if that zone_id is never defined in a zone field of a fare rule associated with the stop by the (stop_time > trip > route) chain described above.

This pull request fixes the issue on the test feed provided by westontrillium in google/transit #429.

Validator results on test feed without fix:

Validator results on test feed with fix:

Please make sure these boxes are checked before submitting your pull request - thanks!

• Run the unit tests with gradle test to make sure you didn't break anything
• Add or update any needed documentation to the repo
• Format the title like "feat: [new feature short description]". Title must follow the Conventional Commit Specification(https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/).
• Linked all relevant issues
• Include screenshot(s) showing how this pull request works and fixes the issue(s)

[welcome]

Thanks for opening this pull request! You're awesome. We use semantic commit messages to streamline the release process. Before your pull request can be merged, you should update your pull request title to start with a semantic prefix. Examples of titles with semantic prefixes:

• fix: Bug with ssl network connections + Java module permissions.
• feat: Initial support for multiple @PrimaryKey annotations.
• docs: update RELEASE.md with new process
  To get this PR to the finish line, please do the following:
• Read our Contribution Guidelines
• Follow Google Java style coding standards
• Include tests when adding/changing behavior
• Include screenshots

[CLAassistant]

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you all sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
1 out of 2 committers have signed the CLA.

✅ krnlmstrd
❌ michaelkearney55
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

[ghost]

I closed this pull request and deleted the fork because of issues with the email written into my commits and CLAassistant, and I submitted a (nearly) identical pull request.