I have attached the diff to the JENA-2213 ticket Marco
On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 11:19 PM Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On 23/01/2022 23:05, Marco Neumann wrote: > > Do I have to initiate the merger in jira from #2213 or is this something > > you do from #1169? > > #1169 is a github pull request: > > https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/1169 > > If you prefer, upload a file of the diff to the jira ticket JENA-2213 (a > git generated diff ideally). > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-2213 > > Andy > > > > > On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 10:59 PM Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Would the best way to move forward be to merge #1169 (which has to be > >> done before 4.4.0) then you can provide PR to update the tests to be > >> appropriate for OSGB which can be done at leisure (before or after > >> 4.4.0)? I don't see any non-test changes below. > >> > >> Andy > >> > >> On 22/01/2022 19:33, Marco Neumann wrote: > >>> in addition to the change to the pom.xml to bump SIS up to 1.1 > >>> > >>> these two files needs to be changed > >>> > >>> modified: > >>> > >> > jena-geosparql/src/test/java/org/apache/jena/geosparql/implementation/SRSInfoTest.java > >>> Line 102 > Envelope expResult = new > Envelope(-118397.00138845091, > >>> 751441.7790901454, -16627.734375018626, 1272149.3463499574); > >>> Line 102 < Envelope expResult = new > Envelope(-104009.35713717458, > >>> 688806.0073395987, -16627.734528041445, 1256558.4455361878); > >>> > >>> modified: > >>> > >> > jena-geosparql/src/test/java/org/apache/jena/geosparql/spatial/SearchEnvelopeTest.java > >>> > >>> Line 64 < public static final double OS_X1 = -104009.35713717458; > >>> Line 65 < public static final double OS_X2 = 688806.0073395987; > >>> Line 66 < public static final double OS_Y1 = -16627.734528041445; > >>> Line 67 < public static final double OS_Y2 = 1256558.4455361878; > >>> > >>> /** > >>> * Test of build method, of class SearchEnvelope. > >>> */ > >>> @Test > >>> public void testBuild_NORTH_OSGB() { > >>> > >>> GeometryWrapper geometryWrapper = GeometryWrapper.extract("< > >>> http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/27700> POINT(52.33022 > -3.766409)", > >>> WKTDatatype.URI); > >>> CardinalDirection direction = CardinalDirection.NORTH; > >>> SearchEnvelope expResult = new SearchEnvelope(new > >> Envelope(OS_X1, > >>> OS_X2, -3.766409, OS_Y2), SpatialIndexTestData.OSGB_SRS_INFO); > >>> SearchEnvelope result = SearchEnvelope.build(geometryWrapper, > >>> SpatialIndexTestData.OSGB_SRS_INFO, direction); > >>> assertEquals(expResult, result); > >>> } > >>> > >>> /** > >>> * Test of build method, of class SearchEnvelope. > >>> */ > >>> @Test > >>> public void testBuild_SOUTH_OSGB() { > >>> > >>> GeometryWrapper geometryWrapper = GeometryWrapper.extract("< > >>> http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/27700> POINT(52.33022 > -3.766409)", > >>> WKTDatatype.URI); > >>> CardinalDirection direction = CardinalDirection.SOUTH; > >>> SearchEnvelope expResult = new SearchEnvelope(new > >> Envelope(OS_X1, > >>> OS_X2, OS_Y1, -3.766409), SpatialIndexTestData.OSGB_SRS_INFO); > >>> SearchEnvelope result = SearchEnvelope.build(geometryWrapper, > >>> SpatialIndexTestData.OSGB_SRS_INFO, direction); > >>> assertEquals(expResult, result); > >>> } > >>> > >>> /** > >>> * Test of build method, of class SearchEnvelope. > >>> */ > >>> @Test > >>> public void testBuild_EAST_OSGB() { > >>> > >>> GeometryWrapper geometryWrapper = GeometryWrapper.extract("< > >>> http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/27700> POINT(52.33022 > -3.766409)", > >>> WKTDatatype.URI); > >>> CardinalDirection direction = CardinalDirection.EAST; > >>> SearchEnvelope expResult = new SearchEnvelope(new > >>> Envelope(52.33022, OS_X2, OS_Y1, OS_Y2), > >>> SpatialIndexTestData.OSGB_SRS_INFO); > >>> SearchEnvelope result = SearchEnvelope.build(geometryWrapper, > >>> SpatialIndexTestData.OSGB_SRS_INFO, direction); > >>> assertEquals(expResult, result); > >>> } > >>> > >>> /** > >>> * Test of build method, of class SearchEnvelope. > >>> */ > >>> @Test > >>> public void testBuild_WEST_OSGB() { > >>> > >>> GeometryWrapper geometryWrapper = GeometryWrapper.extract("< > >>> http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/27700> POINT(52.33022 > -3.766409)", > >>> WKTDatatype.URI); > >>> CardinalDirection direction = CardinalDirection.WEST; > >>> SearchEnvelope expResult = new SearchEnvelope(new > >> Envelope(OS_X1, > >>> 52.33022, OS_Y1, OS_Y2), SpatialIndexTestData.OSGB_SRS_INFO); > >>> SearchEnvelope result = SearchEnvelope.build(geometryWrapper, > >>> SpatialIndexTestData.OSGB_SRS_INFO, direction); > >>> assertEquals(expResult, result); > >>> } > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 7:22 PM Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 22/01/2022 17:34, Marco Neumann wrote: > >>>>> I have not seen this in the pull request yet, but this may work. I > have > >>>>> also made changes to the reference position as it isn't appropriate > for > >>>>> OSGB. > >>>> > >>>> Sound like it would be better than 1169. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> but 1169 may work as is. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 5:17 PM Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> How is it different to > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/1169 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ? (which is the Diff on the ticket, after cleaning up a bit) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 22/01/2022 15:58, Marco Neumann wrote: > >>>>>>> I have created a fix for > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-2213 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> this involves an upgrade to SIS1.1 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> How are we going to include this in Jena 4.4.0? Should I ask for a > >> pull > >>>>>>> request? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Marco > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 3:07 PM Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Things are looking on-track for a release. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> A couple of JIRA have come in recently - one's now got a PR, and > the > >>>>>>>> LiteralLabel looks OK, just needs trying out. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Builds: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Some of the Jenkins is broken (that take 2 mins ... which is a > >> little > >>>>>>>> too fast!) and despite "success" the snapshot repos is unchanged. > >>>>>>>> There's a suspicious warning from Jenkins: INFRA-22769 and it > seems > >> to > >>>>>>>> only touch the top level directory. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I have done a snapshot deploy directly (from local maven run, not > >>>>>>>> jenkins) with no issues. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> GH actions work ... there does seem to be one timing related issue > >> in > >>>>>>>> test cleanup in jena-fuseki-webaccess when the GH actions might be > >>>> under > >>>>>>>> load. It does not look to be related to what is being tested > >> (deleting > >>>>>>>> databases). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Andy > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 15/01/2022 22:08, Bruno P. Kinoshita wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Looks good to me! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks Andy > >>>>>>>>> Bruno > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022, 06:53:40 am NZDT, Andy > >> Seaborne < > >>>>>>>> a...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The idea was to have 4.4.0 quite soon because the Fuseki UI > >> work > >>>>>> only > >>>>>>>>> just missing 4.3.0 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Despite everything, we seem to be still on track for end-ish > >> January! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Resolved tickets for 4.4.0: > >>>>>>>>> https://s.apache.org/jena-4.4.0-jira > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Does that fit with PMC members? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Andy > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Contributions: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Erich Bremer > >>>>>>>>> Update of Titanium. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> == Fuseki: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> More on Fuseki : > >>>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/rrvy84t79ljhpxkpccc7l70tgt9o21lk > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> * New UI > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> A rewritten UI using Vue. Much better easier to take forward and > >> much > >>>>>>>>> easier to manage the dependencies and licensing. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks Bruno! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> * TDB2 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The UI options for databases are "in-memory" and "TDB2". > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> TDB1 is not a visible option. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> * Fuseki modules > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> https://jena.apache.org/documentation/fuseki2/fuseki-modules > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> * WAR file > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The WAR file will be on the project downloads page, not in the > >>>>>>>>> apache-jena-fuseki assembled file. This halves the size of the > >>>>>> zip/tar.gz > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It is part of evolving Fuseki in the future so the standalone > >> server > >>>> is > >>>>>>>>> Fuseki Main + Fuseki modules for UI and administration. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The WAR file will remain while it is being used but it's > >> incompatible > >>>>>>>>> with drop-in Fuseki-module extensions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> * Tomcat 10 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The WAR file is not compatible with Tomcat 10 which is using > >>>> "jakarta" > >>>>>>>>> APIs, not "javax" APIs. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> There is a conversion tool > >>>>>>>>> https://tomcat.apache.org/download-migration.cgi > >>>>>>>>> is someone would like to try it out. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ** HTML file upload. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The HTML file upload functionality, "serviceUpload", is no longer > >>>>>>>>> included in new default configurations. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This is not GSP. GSP does support multifile uploads. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> == Assembler for GeoSPARQL > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This makes it easier to use GeoPSARQL in a plain Fuseki. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> == xloader > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> TDB2 xloader has usability improvements based on our wikidata > >> testing > >>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>> Øyvind, Lorenz and Marco, including full wikiData (16.7B triples) > >> as > >>>>>>>>> well as "truthy" (6.6B triples). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In particular, it now has "--threads=" -- Lorenz reported goo > >>>>>>>>> improvements (if the server has the hardware!). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> TDB1 xloader is still the old tdbloader2 with some of the earlier > >>>>>>>>> improvements of TDB2 xloader. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> For me, TDB2 is the preferred database. > >>>>>>>>> TDB1 exists because it is out there; it may get back ports, it > may > >>>> not. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> == Other: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dependencies up to date: log4j 2.17.1; Update to Titanium 1.2.0 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > -- --- Marco Neumann KONA
