Fix for bug #1629

[Fernando Simon]

Hi Umberto,
    For Oracle Spatial connection I'm working to solve a problem with 
query modes and filters that Prema reported.
    It's related with Filter/FilterItem and query (itemquery/itemnquery) 
mode. I didn't open a bug report  in bugzilla because I didn't have time 
to write a good report, so it's my fault.
    Best regards.

Fernando Simon


Umberto Nicoletti wrote:
> I have checked out HEAD and verified on a map of my own the the bug
> exists by defining both FILTER and FILTERITEM on a layer. If I removed
> the FILTERITEM then the map worked again as expected.
>
> Then I have applied my patch and verified that the map worked again with:
> -both FILTER and FILTERITEM
> -only with FILTER
> -only with FILTERITEM
>
> I used the following values in the test:
>
> FILTER = ' myattribute=A OR myattribute=B '
> FILTERITEM='myattribute'
>
> Last but not least I checked the Oracle spatial code and can confirm
> (If I understood correctly) that the behaviour of postgis with my
> patch matches that of Oracle Spatial, that is the FILTERITEM is 
> ignored (as the docs say).
>
> To be frank I have not tested using msSearchByAttribute because that
> would have required some more time (which I really do not have) but
> for what I know they should end up calling the same functions, so the
> tests are to be considered valid.
>
> I hope this answers your question.
>
> Note 1: we should really set up some automated tests for stuff like
> this and in particular for regression testing and integrate them in
> the build process.
>
> Note 2: I think that we should delay 4.8: better late but working than
> in time but with errors.
>
> Best Regards,
> Umberto
>
> On 1/31/06, Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at dmsolutions.ca> wrote:
>   
>> How confident are you that this is a safe change to make? Is there any
>> potential for side-effects?
>>
>> How'bout we keep this in CVS head for now and include it only in 4.8.1
>> in a couple of weeks once we are confident that the CVS head changes
>> have been well tested and are safe to backport? I would hate to see
>> 4.8.0 delayed again because of a last minute bug.
>>
>> Talking about 4.8.0, can we release it later this week, let's say Thursday?
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>> Umberto Nicoletti wrote:
>>     
>>> It's in cvs head.
>>>
>>> Umberto
>>>
>>> On 1/31/06, Steve Lime <steve.lime at dnr.state.mn.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> I guess I'd say CVS head and see if we can get a few folks to test. Then backport upon confirmation. If that confirmation can happen quickly then including in 4.8 is ok with me.
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>>> Umberto Nicoletti <umberto.nicoletti at GMAIL.COM> 01/30/06 9:53 AM >>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>> I am working on a patch for bug #1629. Shall I commit to HEAD or the
>>>> latest 4.8 rc?
>>>>
>>>> I attach the patch in case comeone wants to give it a try (I already
>>>> did, anyway).
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Umberto
>>>>         
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>   Daniel Morissette               dmorissette at dmsolutions.ca
>>   DM Solutions Group              http://www.dmsolutions.ca/
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     
>
>