On Sun, Apr 26, 2026 at 11:17 AM Jia Yu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Mehak,
>
> Thanks for your email. One clear gap in SedonaSpark is the lack of a
> comprehensive test suite to verify behavioral consistency across
> SedonaSpark, SedonaDB, and PostGIS. In SedonaDB, we already have a
> framework in place to capture and validate these differences. It would
> be valuable to establish a similar framework for SedonaSpark.
>
> Regards,
> Jia
>
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2026 at 2:01 AM mehak arora <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sedona community,
> >
> > I’ve recently started exploring Apache Sedona and have been looking
> > into its support for Boolean spatial predicates such as ST_Contains,
> > ST_Intersects, and ST_Within across different APIs (SQL and PySpark in
> > particular).
> >
> > While going through the documentation and trying out a few examples, I
> > became curious about the consistency of these predicates in terms of:
> >
> > 1. Behavior across APIs (SQL vs PySpark/Scala)
> > 2. Handling of edge cases (e.g., boundary-touching geometries, empty
> > or invalid geometries)
> > 3. Alignment with standards such as PostGIS / OGC definitions
> >
> > I wanted to ask:
> > Are there any known gaps, inconsistencies, or ongoing efforts in this
> > area where contributions would be useful?
> >
> > I’m particularly interested in contributing toward improving API
> > consistency, test coverage for edge cases, or documentation clarity if
> > that aligns with current priorities.
> >
> > Any pointers or guidance would be really helpful.
> >
> > Thanks for your time!
