[geos-devel] GEOS NG Regression Review

[Martin Davis]

Thanks for testing, Joris.

It makes sense that downstream project unit tests are focussed on the code
that is net new to the project.  Still, it is always reassuring to run a
set of functional tests as well. One way to do this fairly easily would be
to develop a test runer that is able to exercise the JTS / GEOS XML test
suites [1][2].  That might be a nice addition to Shapely et al.

[1]
https://github.com/locationtech/jts/tree/master/modules/tests/src/test/resources/testxml
[2] https://github.com/libgeos/geos/tree/master/tests/xmltester/tests

And would be great is to retry some of the (numerous) Shapely issues filed
which involve overlay robust problems.  Here's a selection:

https://github.com/Toblerity/Shapely/issues/829
https://github.com/Toblerity/Shapely/issues/970



On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 2:40 AM Joris Van den Bossche <
jorisvandenbossche at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> First, thanks for all the work on improving the overlay operations!
>
> I ran the test suites of Shapely and PyGEOS with GEOS master and
> DISABLE_OVERLAYNG=OFF.
>
> For PyGEOS there are 2 failing tests related to MakeValid. But both are
> just a change in coordinate order and solved by using spatial equality or
> normalizing the resulting and expected multipolygon first.
> And for Shapely there is 1 failing test caused by a union operation
> returning a GeometryCollection with the parts in a different order, so
> again only a normalization issue.
>
> So basically nothing to report. But that probably says more about the
> Shapely/PyGEOS test suites (which mostly test the *bindings* with simple
> cases, and don't include much complex geometry test cases deferring that to
> GEOS), than about OverlayNG not causing behaviour changes ;)
>
> Best,
> Joris
>
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 17:18, Sandro Santilli <strk at kbt.io> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 06:55:16AM -0700, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Sep 17, 2020, at 6:54 AM, Sandro Santilli <strk at kbt.io> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 01:25:39PM -0700, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDm2aR4a7O41-soS-25Xog1EdQcjmvKCnKltxjbxOC0/edit#
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >> * Despite worries, only one file in topology showed any differences.
>> topogeo_addlinestring.sql needs to be looked at by a topology expert,
>> Sandro do you think you could?
>> > >
>> > > A quick look suggests this is just a lack of normalization from
>> > > the output of OverlayNG (did the old overlay normalize internally ?)
>> >
>> > No, neither normalizes, it's wasted overhead except in testing. Things
>> just come out of the graphs in different orders.
>>
>> Well the result seem to be compatible, just different order,
>> so this case could be threated like the other ones of expecting
>> different results based on GEOS version.
>>
>> --strk;
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20200918/68cf8cad/attachment.html>