[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8245?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16434976#comment-16434976 ]

Karl Wright commented on LUCENE-8245: ------------------------------------- The remaining other failure is due to inconsistent detection of whether or not one of the envelope planes is intersected. Two edges share the same endpoint, and that endpoint is very close to the envelope travel plane. One of edges detects the intersection, but the other does not, and that leads to a miscount: {code} [junit4] 1> The following edges should intersect the travel/testpoint planes: [junit4] 1> Travel plane: [lat=-1.4506713533447755, lon=-1.2251247551355924([X=0.04060395941016342, Y=-0.11274773940940182, Z=-0.9927936672533157])] -> [lat=4.9E-324, lon=0.0([X=1.0, Y=0.0, Z=4.9E-324])] [junit4] 1> Test point plane: [lat=-1.4506713533447755, lon=-1.2251247551355924([X=0.04060395941016342, Y=-0.11274773940940182, Z=-0.9927936672533157])] -> [lat=4.9E-324, lon=0.0([X=1.0, Y=0.0, Z=4.9E-324])] [junit4] 1> Travel plane: [lat=4.9E-324, lon=0.0([X=1.0, Y=0.0, Z=4.9E-324])] -> [lat=0.13953211802880663, lon=-2.443438340098597([X=-0.7585849990851791, Y=-0.6365576248361361, Z=0.139079795174987])] [junit4] 1> [junit4] 1> Considering edge [lat=-1.4506713533447755, lon=-1.2251247551355924([X=0.04060395941016342, Y=-0.11274773940940182, Z=-0.9927936672533157])] -> [lat=4.9E-324, lon=0.0([X=1.0, Y=0.0, Z=4.9E-324])] [junit4] 1> Edge intersects travel or testPoint plane [junit4] 1> Assessing inner crossings... [junit4] 1> Assessing travel intersection point [X=1.0, Y=-1.3268072236836583E-12, Z=-1.1683123903318337E-11]... [junit4] 1> Adjoining point [X=1.0, Y=-1.2139664266344454E-12, Z=-1.068951082242553E-11] (dist = 9.999999999999994E-13) is within [junit4] 1> Adjoining point [X=1.0, Y=-1.4396480207328712E-12, Z=-1.2676736984211145E-11] (dist = 9.999999999999994E-13) is not within [junit4] 1> Assessing testpoint intersection point [X=0.7540698997149328, Y=-0.07411317803505024, Z=-0.6525992822440554]... [junit4] 1> Adjoining point [X=0.7540698997155896, Y=-0.07411317803496516, Z=-0.6525992822433061] (dist = 1.0000354317132432E-12) is not within [junit4] 1> Adjoining point [X=0.7540698997142758, Y=-0.07411317803513531, Z=-0.6525992822448046] (dist = 1.000023996169918E-12) is within [junit4] 1> Assessing outer crossings... // We don't get a travel outer intersection here!!! But we did below, and that's the problem. One crossing is direct, the other is oblique, and that's enough to allow // numerical imprecision to give us different results even though the endpoint for both edges is the same. [junit4] 1> Assessing testpoint intersection point [X=0.7540698997131794, Y=-0.0741131780352774, Z=-0.6525992822460556]... [junit4] 1> Adjoining point [X=0.7540698997138362, Y=-0.07411317803519231, Z=-0.6525992822453063] (dist = 1.0000354317132432E-12) is within [junit4] 1> Adjoining point [X=0.7540698997125226, Y=-0.07411317803536248, Z=-0.6525992822468049] (dist = 1.0000354317132432E-12) is not within [junit4] 1> [junit4] 1> Considering edge [lat=4.9E-324, lon=0.0([X=1.0, Y=0.0, Z=4.9E-324])] -> [lat=0.13953211802880663, lon=-2.443438340098597([X=-0.7585849990851791, Y=-0.6365576248361361, Z=0.139079795174987])] [junit4] 1> Edge intersects travel or testPoint plane [junit4] 1> Assessing inner crossings... [junit4] 1> Assessing travel intersection point [X=1.0, Y=-1.326807223683658E-12, Z=2.8989060802487275E-13]... [junit4] 1> Adjoining point [X=1.0, Y=-2.3037607755580197E-12, Z=5.033426107797519E-13] (dist = 1.0E-12) is not within [junit4] 1> Adjoining point [X=1.0, Y=-3.4985367180929626E-13, Z=7.643860526999353E-14] (dist = 1.0000000000000002E-12) is within [junit4] 1> Assessing outer crossings... [junit4] 1> Assessing travel intersection point [X=1.0, Y=6.731927763163422E-13, Z=-1.470841127187181E-13]... [junit4] 1> Adjoining point [X=1.0, Y=-3.037607755580196E-13, Z=6.636789003616112E-14] (dist = 1.0000000000000002E-12) is within [junit4] 1> Adjoining point [X=1.0, Y=1.650146328190704E-12, Z=-3.6053611547359735E-13] (dist = 1.0E-12) is not within {code} This may be due to the angle of intersection; probably neither should be considered "intersecting", but 1e-12 extra along one is enough, but along the other is not. The only simple way to correct this is to alternatively tighten the cutoff leeway, so that neither detects intersection, or loosen it enough that both edges would detect intersection. I fear that either solution would leave the same situation in place, albeit at a tighter range of values, so I need to think through alternatives. One potential solution is to notice that the endpoint itself is within the envelope plane. This works in the other case where we're trying to be sure we don't miss an intersection with the actual travel plane, but in that case it's part of a binary decision, and in this case it figures into a count, and we cannot afford to count twice. It's possible we could use isNumericallyIdentical() to make sure there is no duplication; this would likely work because we already know that the edge endpoint is close to the intersection point in that case. The riskier part is that we find intersections with the envelope plane that should not be there at all, such as edges that end within the envelope plane that never intersected the travel plane. Fixing those would require horrific logic, I fear. Still gotta think about this, but I'm leaning towards the tighter bound for envelope edge ends. > GeoComplexPolygon fails when intersection of travel plane with edge is near > polygon point > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-8245 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8245 > Project: Lucene - Core > Issue Type: Bug > Components: modules/spatial3d > Reporter: Ignacio Vera > Assignee: Karl Wright > Priority: Major > Fix For: 6.7, 7.4, master (8.0) > > Attachments: LUCENE-8245-case2.patch, LUCENE-8245.jpg, > LUCENE-8245.patch, LUCENE-8245_Polygon.patch, LUCENE-8245_Random.patch, > LUCENE-8245_case3.patch > > > When a travel plane crosses an edge close to an edge point , it is possible > that the above and below planes crosses different edges. In the current > implementation one of the crosses is missed because we only check edges that > are crossed by the main plain and the {{within}} result is wrong. > One possible fix is to check always the intersection of planes and edges > regardless if they are crossed by main plane. That fixed the above issue but > shows other issues like travel planes crossing two edges when it should be > only one due to the fuzziness at edge intersections. > Not sure of a fix so I add the test showing the issue. > > -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org