<div dir="ltr">I am happy with any approach that gives us a chance to both talk about our implementation(s) and promote WPS. We could also use the opportunity to discuss what we are looking forward to in WPS 2.0 etc...<div><br></div><div>GeoServer may be a bit hampered with the echo process idea (as its strength is on processing data served up by the services) but that is fine ... always room for improvement.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>--</div><div>Jody Garnett</div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 23 June 2015 at 06:40, Benjamin Proß <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:b.pross@52north.org" target="_blank">b.pross@52north.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear WPS developers,<br>
<br>
As I mentioned in a previous mail, we originally planned a
interoperability testing for this years WPS benchmark.<br>
I had a discussion with my colleagues lately and we came to the
conclusion that we will not have results ready for the FOSS4G in
September.<br>
As a plan b, I think we could re-use the test concept from last
year, as it was quite sophisticated. <br>
However, we had some discussion during the preparation for the last
benchmark about the execute tests.<br>
I brought up that we could use a simple echo process, which would
have some benefits:<br>
<ul>
<li> we could easily test execute with all three data types </li>
<li> we are independent from the libraries used by the different
WPS implementations for geospatial computations (i.e. we are
testing only the performance of the WPS)</li>
<li> it could be re-used for WPS 1.0/2.0 compliance tests at the
OGC</li>
</ul>
Some points regarding the echo process from earlier mails:<br>
<br>
<div>Am 19.08.2014 um 16:03 schrieb Benjamin
Proß:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">We
do not yet have any results to compare but we think that
benchmarking with "real" processes that compute something could
falsify the results, as the computation in most cases is done by a
underlying library (GeoTools in our case, but this could also be
exchanged). <br>
So the results would be influenced by how fast the geo-computation
lib would do its job. Not sure that we want that?! <br>
We also do not test whether the process really did its job (e.g.
buffer the input geometry). So do we need to use "real" processes?
<br>
We would propose to use an echo process that could have three
inputs, Literal-, Complex- and BBoxData. The process then simply
returns what it gets (input/output types would have to match). <br>
We would probably also need a asynchronous version that has a
delay or something. <br>
That way we could test the input-/output handling capabilities (of
all three data types) of the services and we would still test
everything regarding execute that is tested right now (i.e. we
would not loose functionality).</blockquote>
<br>
<div>Am 21.08.2014 um 11:16 schrieb Fenoy
Gerald:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>I think it is a great idea to handle testings of the Execute request the way you described, by using a simple echo service.
By now for synchronous requests, the tests look like the following:
• Test 1: value as JSON
• Test 2: value as GML
• Test 3: value as reference as GML
• Test 4: same as test 3, result as reference
• Test 5: value as reference as GML using POST request
• Test 6: same as test 5, result as reference
And for asynchronous request, we have the following:
• Test 1': value as reference as GML
• Test 2': same as test 1, result as reference
• Test 3': value as reference as GML using POST request
• Test 4': same as test 3, result as reference
Personally, I think that the Test 1 and Test 2 should become unique now as there is no need for parsing any value from the service itself as it will simply return the value without any treatment. So we should use only the Test 2 for our next run.
I also suppose that we should multiply the number of tests as we will need to ask for each available outputs individually and all the possible combinaisons of them to also test this cases.
So, I would like to propose the following updates for the tests run for both synchronous and asynchronous requests. We run each individual test 7 times: first to have only once output at a time (so 3 tests), then to test all possible combinaisons of 2 outputs names (3 tests) and finally to have all the output returned (1 test).
I hope that you can confirm that I’m right thinking of this updates to the current tests.
I’ve added one column to the table [1] listing all WPS team participating to write the name of the echo service when it will be available.
Best regards,
[1] <a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/WPS_benchmark_2014#Available_infrastructure" target="_blank">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/WPS_benchmark_2014#Available_infrastructure</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
What do you think about this approach?<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Benjamin <br>
<pre cols="72">--
Benjamin Proß
Software Engineer
52°North Geoprocessing Community
52°North Initiative for Geospatial Open Source Software GmbH
Martin-Luther-King-Weg 24
Fon: <a href="tel:%2B49-%280%29-251%E2%80%93396371-42" value="+4925139637142" target="_blank">+49-(0)-251–396371-42</a>
Fax: <a href="tel:%2B49-%280%29-251%E2%80%93396371-11" value="+4925139637111" target="_blank">+49-(0)-251–396371-11</a>
<a href="mailto:b.pross@52north.org" target="_blank">b.pross@52north.org</a>
<a href="http://52north.org/" target="_blank">http://52north.org/</a>
General Managers: Dr. Albert Remke, Dr. Andreas Wytzisk
Local Court Muenster HRB 10849
</pre>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Wps-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Wps-discuss@lists.osgeo.org">Wps-discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/wps-discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/wps-discuss</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>