[geos-devel] beta2 still needs --enable-overlayng

[Regina Obe]

+1 for getting rid of the compile time switch.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geos-devel [mailto:geos-devel-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of
> Paul Ramsey
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 12:17 PM
> To: Roger.Bivand at nhh.no
> Cc: GEOS Development List <geos-devel at lists.osgeo.org>
> Subject: Re: [geos-devel] beta2 still needs --enable-overlayng
> 
> I can make it more deterministic by just removing the compile-time option
> altogether. That way, you build 3.9, you get NG, no question about it. I
don't
> see any purpose in the compile-time switch anymore, it was convenient
> during development, but now that we've done all teh changes in regresion
> etc, both in GEOS and in PostGIS and so on (BTW, don't forget to
aggressively
> add normalize to your tests) the utility of the compile-time switch is
much
> lower, and we can just leave the #define in place and manually flip it if,
for
> some reason, we want to test old behaviour.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> P
> 
> > On Dec 10, 2020, at 8:46 AM, Roger Bivand <Roger.Bivand at nhh.no> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for responding. The motivation is that users of R (and others)
> packages, using R packages interfacing GEOS will see changes in output
> geometries. We can agree that the new engine is preferable, but when their
> unit tests fail, they need to know why. They cannot run make check, and in
> the case of most they will not have a dll or dylib either, as the CRAN
package
> binaries for Windows and MacOS are built static. The lack of a convienient
> and deterministic route to knowing that the reason for the different
result is
> that GEOS is on OverlayNG is a problem, because we cannot give easy self-
> help (run sf or rgeos function x to tell you if OverlayNG is operating).
All we
> can do is assume for all cases that 3.9.0 is OverlayNG.
> >
> > Roger
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Dec 2020, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> >
> >> I am loath to add a live run-time API end point to check for a
"feature"
> that is actually the core engine. It's not like we're ever going to allow
people
> to swap engines. The old engine is going to eventually be ripped out. The
> way you know you have NG is that you can run "make check" and it works,
> because if you run "make check" with the old engine, regression is going
to
> fail. I can ensure there is configure-time output on the status, but
that's
> really about as far as I'm willing to go.
> >>
> >> P
> >>
> >>> On Dec 10, 2020, at 12:56 AM, Roger Bivand <Roger.Bivand at nhh.no>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Even with --enable-overlayng, the ring orders are different from those
> generated by OverlayNG in late October. At that stage we could
differentiate
> by typical ring order patterns, now something else has changed and we
> cannot see whether OverlayNG is operative or not. Lots of tests in R
> packages built against GEOS have relied on operations returning ring-order
> identical polygons (or coord-order identical line segments) compared with
> stored expected values.
> >>>
> >>> Please clarify urgently: OverlayNG is not mentioned in NEWS, nor does
it
> appear as the last line in ./configure output; all I can see is --disable-
> overlayng as a configure option. How can we test for the presence of
> OverlayNG in the runtime? Recall that any user compiling from source or
any
> packager may use the configure argument.
> >>>
> >>> Please do not simply rely on the version number, it is sufficiently
robust.
> >>>
> >>> Roger
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2020, Roger Bivand wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Please confirm that the 3.9.0 release will as advertised enable
> OverlayNG by default. As lately as beta2 configure still seemed to need --
> enable-overlayng. Ad-hoc tests from late October to detect ring order fail
> without --enable-overlayng. I repeat that it is necessary to provide a
clear
> way to interrogate the runtime to find out whether it supports OverlayNG.
> >>>>
> >>>> Next question - why no RC, is it fair to just go from beta to
release?
> >>>>
> >>>> Best wishes,
> >>>>
> >>>> Roger
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Roger Bivand
> >>> Department of Economics, Norwegian School of Economics, Helleveien
> >>> 30, N-5045 Bergen, Norway.
> >>> voice: +47 55 95 93 55; e-mail: Roger.Bivand at nhh.no
> >>> https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2392-6140
> >>> https://scholar.google.no/citations?user=AWeghB0AAAAJ&hl=en
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> geos-devel mailing list
> >>> geos-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Roger Bivand
> > Department of Economics, Norwegian School of Economics, Helleveien 30,
> > N-5045 Bergen, Norway.
> > voice: +47 55 95 93 55; e-mail: Roger.Bivand at nhh.no
> > https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2392-6140
> > https://scholar.google.no/citations?user=AWeghB0AAAAJ&hl=en
> 
> _______________________________________________
> geos-devel mailing list
> geos-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel