-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 84
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Part 1 ATS / ETS: Missing antimeridian test? #851
Comments
Yes, there is more than Antarctica in that bbox. Here is what our server returns: https://cql2test.ldproxy.net/ne110m4cql2/collections/ne_110m_admin_0_countries/items?bbox=150,-90,-150,90. Maybe we should add to The only way to test this would be with a test dataset like in CQL2. Then we could also make the requirement
The ATS does that already (see |
@cportele Thanks, I did fix that in our implementation (with some difficulties left with the paging):
I was just thinking of an easy way a moment ago. Re: "Only/All features", is "All" really more strict than "Only"? Perhaps it should be both "Only" and "All"?
Right. (EDITED -- sorry I realized later you were talking about the spatial geometry here, not the antimeridian). Also realized that a basic LineString / BBOX intersection (rivers) was not working either (false negative when line fully within BBOX), so the ETS might possibly not be testing that well either. |
While working on CQL2 Spatial Operators, I am realizing that
/collections/cql2-test:ne_110m_admin_0_countries/items?bbox=150,-90,-150,90
should probably be returning more than only Antarctica.It does not seem that CITE/TeamEngine test was able to detect that problem in our implementation.
Although the text immediately before Example 6 about New Zealand talks about the antimeridian bounding boxes, the
Requirement 23
/req/core/fc-bbox-response
does not have any specific clauses about it.The Abstract Test 19 in turn does not say anything about it, and this translates in the ETS not testing this properly.
Might be related to opengeospatial/ets-ogcapi-features10#187 that mentioned a test that used to be Abstract Test 13.
There were also other problems not detected, where more features than expected were being returned where the bounding box of the geometry would intersect, but not the actual geometry (the ATS / ETS could actually really check that all returned feature geometries do intersect the requested bounding box).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: