[QGIS-Developer] What to do about WFS test failures?

Mon Sep 3 13:50:13 PDT 2018

I agree WFS 3.0 is a much better implementation and it would be great if a
implementation is started soon to track the current standards development.
However, we still have (and will have for a long time) a user need to
support WFS 1.0 and 2.0 - so this still needs to be deal with.

On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 8:32 AM Carlo A. Bertelli (Charta s.r.l.) <
carlo.bertelli at gmail.com> wrote:

> What about starting with/focusing on WFS 3? The new version is really
> cleaner and seems much more efficient.
> The current WFS implementation in QGIS is much better than previous
> versions, even if sometimes making a virtual OGR file il the only way to
> use some services. There are really bad server implementations out there,
> additionally an automated solution struggles against misleading and lazy
> XML informations. This is a broken idea or at least one that asks for close
> cooperation between server and client.
> Just my remaining cent.
> c
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Jeremy Palmer <palmerjnz at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Can I also add that the refactoring that was funded in 2.16 added tests,
>> paging support, filter query builder and dynamic caching. There is now a
>> lot of complexity in the driver due to the complexity of WFS server
>> implementations and the standard, plus the multi-threading code. If a
>> refactor is proposed I would be against anything that doesn't deal current
>> use cases and edge cases which have already been implemented. Maybe some
>> analysis of the failed tests is the first place to start. WFS-T is a side
>> issue to that.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jeremy
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 7:51 AM Régis Haubourg <regis.haubourg at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Even, thanks for pointing that, I missed that history.
>>> I'll ask the dev's for the detailed improvements planned, I dont' have
>>> any detail currently (sorry for that)
>>> Régis
>>>
>>> Le lun. 3 sept. 2018 à 21:29, Even Rouault <even.rouault at spatialys.com>
>>> a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Régis,
>>>>
>>>> Not that I'm against improvements, all the contrary, but just wanted to
>>>> underline that the provider was seriously refactored already in 2.16.
>>>> Clearly
>>>> the lack of WFS-T support for 1.1 and 2.0 in the scope of those
>>>> enhancements
>>>> can be a source of confusion currently for users. What do you have in
>>>> mind as
>>>> refactoring exactly ?
>>>>
>>>> Even
>>>>
>>>> > Hi all,
>>>> > I very much think that the WFS client is an really bad state, and is
>>>> not
>>>> > really reliable, especially in WFS-T context.
>>>> > The good news is that we just have been funded to refactor it !
>>>> > The work should start in september and land in 3.6. I will let our
>>>> dev's
>>>> > come here with more technical details about the goals. I hope we will
>>>> also
>>>> > be able to take benefit of this to this the OGC compliancy of the
>>>> client
>>>> > here.
>>>> > Best regards,
>>>> > Régis
>>>> >
>>>> > Le lun. 3 sept. 2018 à 11:36, Tom Chadwin <tom.chadwin at nnpa.org.uk> a
>>>> >
>>>> > écrit :
>>>> > > I can't offer any helpful suggestions, but just to let you know I
>>>> finally
>>>> > > had
>>>> > > to disable all my plugin WFS tests. I used to cope, by rerunning
>>>> failed
>>>> > > Travis runs, but by about three months ago, it seemed no longer
>>>> usable -
>>>> > > failure after failure.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > I was using a third-party WFS, and perhaps I could have got round
>>>> this by
>>>> > > adding a WFS provider to the test docker image, but in this
>>>> plugin's case,
>>>> > > I
>>>> > > didn't think it worth the significant effort to do so. The WM(T)S
>>>> tests
>>>> > > also
>>>> > > use third-party sources and seem stable, so perhaps this wasn't the
>>>> > > underlying issue anyway.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > If an improvement or solution could be found, it would be great to
>>>> > > reinstate
>>>> > > these tests.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Thanks
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Tom
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > -----
>>>> > > Buy Pie Spy: Adventures in British pastry 2010-11 on Amazon
>>>> > > --
>>>> > > Sent from:
>>>> > > http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/QGIS-Developer-f4099106.html
>>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>>> > > QGIS-Developer mailing list
>>>> > > QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> > > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>>> > > Unsubscribe:
>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
>>>> http://www.spatialys.com
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> QGIS-Developer mailing list
>>> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
>>> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> QGIS-Developer mailing list
>> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
>> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Carlo A. Bertelli
>    Charta servizi e sistemi per il territorio e la storia ambientale srl
>           Dipendenze del palazzo Doria,
>           vc. alla Chiesa della Maddalena 9/2 16124      Genova (Italy)
>           tel./fax +39(0)10 2475439  +39 0108566195  mobile:+39 393 1590711
>    e-mail: bertelli at chartasrl.eu      http://www.chartasrl.eu
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20180904/01c16d9a/attachment.html>