Fix for bug #1629

[Umberto Nicoletti]

Let's keep in touch on this issue.

Regards,
Umberto

On 2/1/06, Fernando Simon <fsimon at univali.br> wrote:
> 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/
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>