-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
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
Should locations be compared as Strings? #35
Comments
It should probably exclude Locations.location from the orderby tests, since ordering by location does not make sense. Especially when considering polygon locations. |
Thanks for pointing that out. |
I've fixed this in the last commit on the pull request #32 since it nicely fits in that set. Instead of just using a list of string, it introduces a class EntityProperty that has several fields that are useful for the checks. If you feel adventurous you could test our fork of the test suit: https://github.com/FraunhoferIOSB/ets-sta10 |
That sounds good. What are the next steps then? When is the PR expected to land? Should I submit a smaller PR that only fixes that? Thanks! |
Hello everyone, According to the discussion above the unitOfMeasurement, Thing.properties, Observation.parameters, FeatureOfInterest.feature, and Location.location should be excluded from the order by test. Best regards, |
@taniakhalafbeigi Can you please take a look at this question? What is the current status of the test suite here? |
Currently there is no PR specific to this issue and this issue hasn't been addressed yet. |
I'm running into an issue when ordering by Locations.location.
I think that should compare results by coordinates, but the test is comparing as a String, according to:
https://github.com/opengeospatial/ets-sta10/blob/master/src/main/java/org/opengis/cite/sta10/filteringExtension/Capability3Tests.java#L537
We are delegating that orderby to SQL (postgres) directly and it seems that the result is different:
coordinates: [-117.05, 51.05] < coordinates: [-100.05,50.05]
when the test is expecting the opposite.
Could somebody please elaborate on the idea behind this test?
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: