On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 05:18:30PM +0200, Sandro Santilli wrote: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 06:55:16AM -0700, Paul Ramsey wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 17, 2020, at 6:54 AM, Sandro Santilli <s...@kbt.io> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 01:25:39PM -0700, Paul Ramsey wrote: > > >> > > >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDm2aR4a7O41-soS-25Xog1EdQcjmvKCnKltxjbxOC0/edit# > > >> > > > > > >> * Despite worries, only one file in topology showed any differences. > > >> topogeo_addlinestring.sql needs to be looked at by a topology expert, > > >> Sandro do you think you could? > > > > > > A quick look suggests this is just a lack of normalization from > > > the output of OverlayNG (did the old overlay normalize internally ?) > > > > No, neither normalizes, it's wasted overhead except in testing. Things just > > come out of the graphs in different orders. > > Well the result seem to be compatible, just different order, > so this case could be threated like the other ones of expecting > different results based on GEOS version.
I'll see how to modify the test to not be order dependent. --strk; _______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
