[QGIS-Developer] QGIS 3 > Processing: some test

[Paolo Cavallini]

Hi all,

Il 10/06/2017 01:25, Nyall Dawson ha scritto:

> No - native QGIS one. None of the GDAL/OGR provider is ported to the
> new API yet and is not available in nightly builds.

so it *should* work, right? should I keep on testing, reporting here or
on the PR, or?

> Native, GDAL, grass and saga will be ported. It's low on my priority
> list right now though, so if anyone wants to step forward and port
> these now then it'd be much appreciated. My priorities are:
> 
> 1. bringing back complete functionality in the run alg dialog
> 2. batch mode
> 3. scripts
> 4. modeler
> 5. resurrecting remaining algs
> 6. adding new stuff to existing algs (dynamic parameters, porting to c++, etc)

thanks for letting us know. IMHO we cannot ship Q3 without a full set of
algs (including rasters). Is anyone planning to help porting additional
algs?

> We probably need to bring up a discussion sometime about how to handle
> user's migrations to processing 3.0. As I see the situation:
> 
> - we have had some algs which were available in 2.x removed. This
> breaks existing models which used those algorithms.
> - we have a bunch of "duplicate" native algs, some of which have been
> "deprecated" in 3.0. Deprecation just hides them from the toolbox - it
> doesn't break existing models. This is a HUGE amount of baggage to
> carry around and maintain, for little benefit.
> - user scripts will be broken, because they use the old API
> - the remaining algs still need a lot of cleanup. We have a lot of
> duplicate functionality spread across the QGIS algs, which would be
> good to address for 3.0

I agree in removing duplication, but special care should be given to
reliability of the algs, and to keep the full set of options. As
Giovanni correctly pointed out, until now having several alternatives
was the only practical way of completing many tasks, given the frequent
breakages of specific modules, and the lack of important options in core
ones.

> I'd like to raise the possibility that we break compatibility with 2.x
> models in 3.0, and require that users re-create their models using the
> new set of available algorithms. I personally think this is acceptable
> to do, given that:

agreed fully.

All the best.
-- 
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS & PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=IT&q=qgis,arcgis