[geos-devel] 3.9.0beta1 + GEOSwift
Andrew Hershberger
andrew.d.hershberger at gmail.com
Mon Nov 30 17:22:25 PST 2020
Looks good. The GEOSwift test suite passes with your change. Thanks!
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 4:13 PM Paul Ramsey <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca>
wrote:
> Thanks for this report! Would you mind trying out the fix here:
>
> https://github.com/libgeos/geos/pull/360
>
> P.
>
> > On Nov 28, 2020, at 6:33 PM, Andrew Hershberger <
> andrew.d.hershberger at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all, I help maintain https://github.com/GEOSwift/GEOSwift
> >
> > I'm testing out 3.9.0beta1 and have run into a couple things to share.
> >
> > If you want to try any of these out directly with GEOSwift, I recommend
> using the Swift Package Manager. You can clone
> https://github.com/GEOSwift/GEOSwift.git and check out branch
> geos-3.9.0-testing. Then run `$ swift test` to build and run the tests. I'm
> using Swift 5.3.1. One way to get Swift is to use the Docker image:
> https://hub.docker.com/_/swift
> >
> > 1) GeometryConvertible_GEOSTests.testMakeValidWhenItIsAPolygon()
> >
> > This test is checking that makeValid() (a wrapper around the CAPI's
> GEOSMakeValid_r) produces an expected result given some pre-defined
> geometry. Here's what happened:
> >
> > Input:
> >
> > Polygon(
> > exterior: LinearRing(
> > points: [
> > Point(x: 0, y: 0),
> > Point(x: 2, y: 0),
> > Point(x: 1, y: 1),
> > Point(x: 0, y: 2),
> > Point(x: 2, y: 2),
> > Point(x: 1, y: 1),
> > Point(x: 0, y: 0)
> > ]
> > )
> > )
> >
> > Actual (wrapped in a multipolygon)
> >
> > Polygon(
> > exterior: LinearRing(
> > points: [
> > Point(x: 0, y: 2),
> > Point(x: 2, y: 2),
> > Point(x: 1, y: 1),
> > Point(x: 0, y: 2)
> > ]
> > )
> > )
> >
> > Polygon(
> > exterior: LinearRing(
> > points: [
> > Point(x: 2, y: 0),
> > Point(x: 0, y: 0),
> > Point(x: 1, y: 1),
> > Point(x: 2, y: 0)
> > ]
> > )
> > )
> >
> > Expected (wrapped in any order in a multipolygon)
> >
> > Polygon(
> > exterior: LinearRing(
> > points: [
> > Point(x: 1, y: 1),
> > Point(x: 2, y: 0),
> > Point(x: 0, y: 0),
> > Point(x: 1, y: 1)
> > ]
> > )
> > )
> >
> > Polygon(
> > exterior: LinearRing(
> > points: [
> > Point(x: 1, y: 1),
> > Point(x: 0, y: 2),
> > Point(x: 2, y: 2),
> > Point(x: 1, y: 1)
> > ]
> > )
> > )
> >
> > Since these are topologically equivalent, I've just updated the test to
> check for that instead of exact equality (see GEOSwift commit
> 6c4b191646623159528433fbd112c11ddce7c5ea on the aforementioned branch), but
> I thought I'd share here just in case this behavior is unexpected.
> >
> > 2) GeometryConvertible_GEOSTests.testBufferAllTypes()
> >
> > This test is intended to be a sort of stress-test to make sure that all
> the types of geometry on which GEOSwift allows you to invoke buffer(by:)
> (wrapper around the CAPI's GEOSBuffer_r) can actually be buffered. In geos
> 3.8.1, all the sample geometries were able to be buffered without any
> issues.
> >
> > Here's what we get for one of the test cases with 3.9.0beta1:
> >
> > Input:
> >
> > GeometryCollection(
> > geometries: [
> > GeometryCollection(
> > geometries: [
> > Point(x: 1.0, y: 2.0),
> > MultiPoint(
> > points: [
> > Point(x: 1.0, y: 2.0),
> > Point(x: 3.0, y: 4.0)
> > ]
> > ),
> > LineString(
> > points: [
> > Point(x: 1.0, y: 2.0),
> > Point(x: 3.0, y: 4.0)
> > ]
> > ),
> > MultiLineString(
> > lineStrings: [
> > LineString(
> > points: [
> > Point(x: 1.0, y: 2.0),
> > Point(x: 3.0, y: 4.0)
> > ]
> > ),
> > LineString(
> > points: [
> > Point(x: 5.0, y: 6.0),
> > Point(x: 7.0, y: 8.0)
> > ]
> > )
> > ]
> > ),
> > Polygon(
> > exterior: LinearRing(
> > points: [
> > Point(x: 2.0, y: 2.0),
> > Point(x: -2.0, y: 2.0),
> > Point(x: -2.0, y: -2.0),
> > Point(x: 2.0, y: -2.0),
> > Point(x: 2.0, y: 2.0)
> > ]
> > ),
> > holes: [
> > LinearRing(
> > points: [
> > Point(x: 1.0, y: 1.0),
> > Point(x: 1.0, y: -1.0),
> > Point(x: -1.0, y: -1.0),
> > Point(x: -1.0, y: 1.0),
> > Point(x: 1.0, y: 1.0)
> > ]
> > )
> > ]
> > ),
> > MultiPolygon(
> > polygons: [
> > Polygon(
> > exterior: LinearRing(
> > points: [
> > Point(x: 2.0, y: 2.0),
> > Point(x: -2.0, y: 2.0),
> > Point(x: -2.0, y: -2.0),
> > Point(x: 2.0, y: -2.0),
> > Point(x: 2.0, y: 2.0)
> > ]
> > ),
> > holes: [
> > LinearRing(
> > points: [
> > Point(x: 1.0, y: 1.0),
> > Point(x: 1.0, y: -1.0),
> > Point(x: -1.0, y: -1.0),
> > Point(x: -1.0, y: 1.0),
> > Point(x: 1.0, y: 1.0)
> > ]
> > )
> > ]
> > ),
> > Polygon(
> > exterior: LinearRing(
> > points: [
> > Point(x: 7.0, y: 2.0),
> > Point(x: 3.0, y: 2.0),
> > Point(x: 3.0, y: -2.0),
> > Point(x: 7.0, y: -2.0),
> > Point(x: 7.0, y: 2.0)
> > ]
> > ),
> > holes: []
> > )
> > ]
> > )
> > ]
> > )
> > ]
> > )
> >
> > buffer(by: 0.5)
> >
> > errorMessage: "IllegalArgumentException: Overlay input is
> mixed-dimension"
> >
> > The exception is being thrown from EdgeNodingBuilder.cpp:195.
> >
> > In frame #2, i = 0
> >
> > In frame #0, i = 0
> >
> > This suggests to me that it's checking the dimension of the Point inside
> of the child GeometryCollection inside of the parent GeometryCollection.
> >
> > g->getDimension() is returning 0 (geos::geom::Dimension::DimensionType
> P) and expectedDim is 2.
> >
> > Here's a relevant stack trace:
> >
> > #0
> geos::operation::overlayng::EdgeNodingBuilder::addGeometryCollection(geos::geom::GeometryCollection
> const*, int, int) at geos/src/operation/overlayng/EdgeNodingBuilder.cpp:195
> > #1
> geos::operation::overlayng::EdgeNodingBuilder::add(geos::geom::Geometry
> const*, int) at geos/src/operation/overlayng/EdgeNodingBuilder.cpp:169
> > #2
> geos::operation::overlayng::EdgeNodingBuilder::addGeometryCollection(geos::geom::GeometryCollection
> const*, int, int) at geos/src/operation/overlayng/EdgeNodingBuilder.cpp:197
> > #3
> geos::operation::overlayng::EdgeNodingBuilder::add(geos::geom::Geometry
> const*, int) at geos/src/operation/overlayng/EdgeNodingBuilder.cpp:169
> > #4
> geos::operation::overlayng::EdgeNodingBuilder::build(geos::geom::Geometry
> const*, geos::geom::Geometry const*) at
> geos/src/operation/overlayng/EdgeNodingBuilder.cpp:82
> > #5 geos::operation::overlayng::OverlayNG::computeEdgeOverlay() at
> geos/src/operation/overlayng/OverlayNG.cpp:222
> > #6 geos::operation::overlayng::OverlayNG::getResult() at
> geos/src/operation/overlayng/OverlayNG.cpp:179
> > #7
> geos::operation::overlayng::PrecisionReducer::reducePrecision(geos::geom::Geometry
> const*, geos::geom::PrecisionModel const*, bool) at
> geos/src/operation/overlayng/PrecisionReducer.cpp:46
> > #8
> geos::precision::GeometryPrecisionReducer::reduce(geos::geom::Geometry
> const&) at geos/src/precision/GeometryPrecisionReducer.cpp:60
> > #9
> geos::precision::GeometryPrecisionReducer::reduce(geos::geom::Geometry
> const&, geos::geom::PrecisionModel const&) at
> geos/include/geos/precision/GeometryPrecisionReducer.h:102
> > #10
> geos::operation::buffer::BufferOp::bufferFixedPrecision(geos::geom::PrecisionModel
> const&) at geos/src/operation/buffer/BufferOp.cpp:263
> > #11 geos::operation::buffer::BufferOp::bufferReducedPrecision(int) at
> geos/src/operation/buffer/BufferOp.cpp:218
> > #12 geos::operation::buffer::BufferOp::bufferReducedPrecision() at
> geos/src/operation/buffer/BufferOp.cpp:168
> > #13 geos::operation::buffer::BufferOp::computeGeometry() at
> geos/src/operation/buffer/BufferOp.cpp:150
> > #14 geos::operation::buffer::BufferOp::getResultGeometry(double) at
> geos/src/operation/buffer/BufferOp.cpp:122
> > #15 geos::operation::buffer::BufferOp::bufferOp(geos::geom::Geometry
> const*, double, int, int) at geos/src/operation/buffer/BufferOp.cpp:114
> > #16 geos::geom::Geometry::buffer(double, int) const at
> geos/src/geom/Geometry.cpp:509
> > #17 GEOSBuffer_r::$_41::operator()() const at
> geos/capi/geos_ts_c.cpp:1078
> > #18
> _Z7executeIZ12GEOSBuffer_rE4$_41LDn0EEDTclfp0_EEP20GEOSContextHandle_HSOT_
> at geos/capi/geos_ts_c.cpp:388
> > #19 ::GEOSBuffer_r(GEOSContextHandle_t, const geos::geom::Geometry *,
> double, int) at geos/capi/geos_ts_c.cpp:1077
> > #20 GeometryConvertible.buffer(by:) at
> GEOSwift/GEOSwift/GEOS/GeometryConvertible+GEOS.swift:348
> > #21 GeometryConvertible_GEOSTests.testBufferAllTypes() at
> GEOSwift/GEOSwiftTests/GEOS/GeometryConvertible+GEOSTests.swift:856
> >
> > Let me know what other info I can provide.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew
> > _______________________________________________
> > geos-devel mailing list
> > geos-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> geos-devel mailing list
> geos-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geos-devel/attachments/20201130/47185bf9/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the geos-devel
mailing list