[SoC] Creation of new topological rules in gvSIG desktop - Weekly Report 4

[Hector Tundidor Hernandez]

Dear Community,

I have updated my wiki page with the Weekly Report 4. Any comments and suggestions are welcome.

1) What did I complete this week?

This week, I have dedicated it to perform tests with different datasets, debug the code and document the rule in the wiki and in the json file. During testing with one of the datasets, a bug was found in the Java source code. This bug was due to the fact that it had not been considered what to do when evaluating if the point geometry for the dimensions Point3DM, Point3D and Point2DM was null. This did not happen for the point dataset created during the development of the rule code because, by default, it is a geometry with dimension Point2D and for this case if this question was taken into account in the Java source code. Also, the code was tested with datasets with a greater number of geometries, close to 400,000. He found the topological errors related to this rule and it took about 7 minutes. Another dataset with multipoint entities was used and the code considered different topological errors based on the established tolerance. In any case, the whole cluster is considered as an error and the implemented action eliminates the entire group of points. Also, some small modifications were made to the code to take into account the option of the user entering a tolerance value of 0.

_updated wiki:_ https://github.com/hecnita/gvsig-gsoc2019-topology/wiki/Rule-Must-be-disjoint

_rule must be disjoint repository:_ https://github.com/hecnita/TopologyRuleMustBeDisjointPoint

_Java source code bug:_ https://redmine.gvsig.net/redmine/projects/gvsig-desktop/repository/revisions/44298/diff/trunk/org.gvsig.desktop/org.gvsig.desktop.compat.cdc/org.gvsig.fmap.geometry/org.gvsig.fmap.geometry.jts/src/main/java/org/gvsig/fmap/geom/jts/primitive/point/Point3DM.java?utf8=%E2%9C%93&type=sbs

2) What am I going to achieve for next week?

The following week I will continue with the code related to the rule Must not have dangles, from which, I started its study and documentation in the wiki last week.

3) Is there any blocking issue?

In general, there is no blocking problem. The part of the code that works without spatial indexes and its test that is carried out with a specific dataset is left for later.

Regards

Héctor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/soc/attachments/20190623/fd7731d6/attachment.html>