test: include #1439 in test set and clean up of related issues#1481
test: include #1439 in test set and clean up of related issues#1481barendgehrels wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
| TEST_CASE(issue_1363); | ||
| #endif | ||
|
|
||
| TEST_CASE_WITH(issue_1439, 0, 1, ut_settings().ignore_validity_diff_sym()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some (non commited) debug output gives:
issue_1439_0_1 875.977 7.49641 883.474 6.20003e-11 1 875.977 7.49641
which is area a, area b, the union, the intersection, "intersects" (1), diff a-b, diff b-a
The intersection is small but present. Its WKT is the same as the one of the reporter in #1439. So we can consider it as closed. The one imperfection is that the sym-diff is invalid, over such a small common area - it might be a false positive.
| "MULTILINESTRING((0 0,5 5),(5 5,6 6))", | ||
| "1FF00F102"); | ||
| #ifdef BOOST_GEOMETRY_TEST_ENABLE_FAILING | ||
| #ifdef BOOST_GEOMETRY_TEST_FAILURES |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A few years back we harmonized these defines - apparently it diverged again after that, a bit, in this way. Better to have just one define for this purpose.
| "MULTIPOLYGON(((2.0611606968426476882 0.61095000000000010409,2.046160696842648008 0.62595000000000000639,2.0311606968426478836 0.6409499999999999087,1.9486606968426476438 0.73094999999999987761,1.9261606968426476794 0.76094999999999990425,1.9336606968426472974 0.78344999999999986873,2.0161606968426477593 0.85844999999999993534,2.0236606968426480435 0.8584499999999997133,2.0461606968426475639 0.90344999999999986429,2.0911606968426479369 0.88844999999999973994,2.098660696842647333 0.8734499999999996156,2.1136606968426479014 0.86594999999999977547,2.1286606968426480258 0.85094999999999976215,2.1436606968426472619 0.83594999999999985985,2.143660696842647706 0.62594999999999989537,2.0836606968426476527 0.62594999999999989537,2.0611606968426476882 0.61095000000000010409)))", | ||
| "MULTIPOLYGON(((2.0461606968426484521 0.90344999999999986429,2.001160696842647635 0.91095000000000003748,1.8511606968426477238 0.91094999999999992646,1.813660696842647635 0.91844999999999998863,1.813660696842647635 0.9409499999999999531,1.8211606968426479192 1.1059499999999999886,1.8286606968426479813 1.263449999999999962,1.9636606968426479902 1.263449999999999962,2.0461606968426484521 1.2559499999999998998,2.0536606968426478481 1.2409499999999999975,2.1286606968426480258 1.2409499999999999975,2.1286606968426480258 1.1059499999999999886,2.1211606968426477415 0.92594999999999982876,2.1136606968426479014 0.89594999999999980211,2.091160696842648381 0.88844999999999996199,2.0461606968426484521 0.90344999999999986429)))" | ||
| "POLYGON((-2.47089026 -86.03059246, -1.161944873 146.3030596, 3.40221214 145.8628015, 3.024695769 141.949088, 2.420586453 111.9554564, 1.208013978 -86.04069936, -2.47089026 -86.03059246))", | ||
| "POLYGON((-6.213278056 -88.01851748, -6.207382255 -86.51852906, -6.20539951 -86.01408604, -2.470873099 -86.02434575, -2.472221358 -86.53315586, -2.476196085 -88.03315059, -6.213278056 -88.01851748))" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the version from the sample of the report in #1439
| { | ||
| "MULTIPOLYGON(((2.0611606968426476882 0.61095000000000010409,2.046160696842648008 0.62595000000000000639,2.0311606968426478836 0.6409499999999999087,1.9486606968426476438 0.73094999999999987761,1.9261606968426476794 0.76094999999999990425,1.9336606968426472974 0.78344999999999986873,2.0161606968426477593 0.85844999999999993534,2.0236606968426480435 0.8584499999999997133,2.0461606968426475639 0.90344999999999986429,2.0911606968426479369 0.88844999999999973994,2.098660696842647333 0.8734499999999996156,2.1136606968426479014 0.86594999999999977547,2.1286606968426480258 0.85094999999999976215,2.1436606968426472619 0.83594999999999985985,2.143660696842647706 0.62594999999999989537,2.0836606968426476527 0.62594999999999989537,2.0611606968426476882 0.61095000000000010409)))", | ||
| "MULTIPOLYGON(((2.0461606968426484521 0.90344999999999986429,2.001160696842647635 0.91095000000000003748,1.8511606968426477238 0.91094999999999992646,1.813660696842647635 0.91844999999999998863,1.813660696842647635 0.9409499999999999531,1.8211606968426479192 1.1059499999999999886,1.8286606968426479813 1.263449999999999962,1.9636606968426479902 1.263449999999999962,2.0461606968426484521 1.2559499999999998998,2.0536606968426478481 1.2409499999999999975,2.1286606968426480258 1.2409499999999999975,2.1286606968426480258 1.1059499999999999886,2.1211606968426477415 0.92594999999999982876,2.1136606968426479014 0.89594999999999980211,2.091160696842648381 0.88844999999999996199,2.0461606968426484521 0.90344999999999986429)))" | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unrelated, it was duplicate
|
|
||
| #ifdef BOOST_GEOMETRY_TEST_ENABLE_FAILING | ||
| TEST_INTERSECTION(issue_1439, 0, 0, 0.0); | ||
| #endif |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This overlay.cpp is more a debug test - for "real" tests we should prefer test/algorithms/set_operations/set_ops_areal_areal.cpp
tinko92
left a comment
tinko92
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me based on reading the diff. Because I have many unrelated test failures on my current machine, I did not test locally and trust the CI on this (since it only touches ./test/ anyway).
The comment on overlay.cpp is helpful, I was unsure about it's relationship to set_ops_areal_areal.cpp during earlier work. As an aside, is there any significance to some of its tests being commented out rather than behind BOOST_GEOMETRY_TEST_FAILURES?
Thanks for the approval and the comment! Indeed, There is also a And yes, tests are commented out - they could actually just be removed from these two sources. |
2 participants
No description provided.