[GRASS-dev] Re: gis.m crashes on zoom to map existing in more than one mapset

[Michael Barton]

Moritz,

Yes, this warning will again break the GUI. This seems like a warning that
is not terribly useful. So what if a map with the same name exists in
another mapset? 

May I suggest that the -g flag, which means print in shell *SCRIPT* format,
does exactly that--print the output in a format that can easily be parsed by
scripts. A warning at the beginning of output for scripting cannot easily be
parsed. The warning should be for the format that is to be read by humans.
Any warnings or similar messages should be surpressed in scripting output
format.

Even for humans, I'm not sure that this particular warning is especially
useful. What is it "warning" about? The design of independent mapsets, with
the option of "name at MAPSET" construction permits maps of the same name to
reside in different mapsets of the same location.

Michael


On 1/4/07 6:12 AM, "Moritz Lennert" <mlennert at club.worldonline.be> wrote:

> Hi Michael,
> 
> I don't know if this is just another manifestation of the changes in
> g.region, but gis.m crashes when I try to zoom to a map which exists in
> more than one mapset of the current location.
> 
> To reproduce in spearfish, in mapset user1:
> 
> 1) g.copy rast=bugsites at PERMANENT,bugsites (or any other raster or
> vector map)
> 
> 2) display bugsites
> 
> 3) zoom to selected map
> 
> The command used in mapcanvas.tcl is g.region -ugp rast=bugsites. This
> gives:
> 
> GRASS 6.3.cvs (spearfish60):~ > g.region -ugp rast=bugsites
> WARNING: 'cell/bugsites' was found in more mapsets (also found in user1).
> projection=1
> zone=13
> datum=nad27
> ellipsoid=clark66
> n=4928000
> s=4914000
> w=590000
> e=609000
> nsres=100
> ewres=100
> rows=140
> cols=190
> cells=26600
> 
> So I imagine that the WARNING is what causes the problem.
> 
> Just as a side note: I have always found it illogical that when I work
> with the map in mapset user1 (or at least I think I do), the warning
> tells me that the map _also_ exists in user1, as if it was currently
> working with the one in PERMANENT.
> Does this mean, that being in mapset user1, and launching a command on a
> map that exists both in user1 and in PERMANENT makes the command work
> with the version in PERMANENT, or is it just a confusing formulation ?
> I have always worked with the idea that it is the second. Any reason for
> this formulation or could we change this to "map also exists in
> PERMANENT (or whatever _other_ mapsets than the one you are currently in)" ?
> 
> Moritz

__________________________________________
Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Arizona State University

phone: 480-965-6213
fax: 480-965-7671
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton