Hi Gerd Patch attached that: - rewords the sentence is the Style Manual and changes the highlighting; I need to check the next build/download to see if this is clearer. - fixes polygon 'any' method to also return true if exactly ON. - merge polygons for 'any' so that line on shared boundary is "in" rather than "on". - change the test driver to try all methods relevant to the element, checking they return true/false as appropriate. I decided that, rather than introducing a new tag saying which methods should match, it was clearer to use the 'expected' tag value as a description of how the element interacted with the polygons and generate the methods that should match from this and the non-matching from a list if all methods. Ticker On Thu, 2020-02-20 at 16:45 +0000, Ticker Berkin wrote:
Hi Gerd
I don't think the test data 'expected' values are wrong, it is just that they are more specific than the 'method' mechanism allows to be differentiated; eg a polygon can only be tested for ALL in or ANY in.
At the moment I feel you have a reluctance about the whole concept of the methods. Once the principle is accepted, I'll go through the test data and add, as another tag, the list of methods that should match the element, then change the test driver to check that these match and the other applicable methods don't.
Reg. b14: It isn't the stop-early code that causes the problems, isLineInShape is not giving the correct answer for a simple polygon produced by the MP cutter.
It would be quite easy to introduce some POLYGON 'on' methods, that match the outer, inner or either edge of a polygon, but maybe this could wait until there is a call for it.
Next mail: I'll change the sentence as you suggest.
Please can you commit the patch as it stands; it has a lot of good stuff in it. Then I can do the IsInUtilTest and test data changes as the next stage. It's also handy to see how the Style Manual looks after each build into the download area, because I don't know how to generate it and am just guessing at the formatting.
Thank you Ticker
On Thu, 2020-02-20 at 15:41 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
I see that you overwrite the expected value stored in the test data in the unit test. Please don't do this. If you think that the expected value in is-in-samples.osm is wrong we should discuss the test data. In my eyes b14 clearly has points on the edge (as it is part of the edge) and is out.
If you think the expected results are correct but your new code doesn't allow to test them because of the early stop code please add a new tag to each object or maybe create a new file. The unit test file is meant to document what the code does.
Gerd