Hi Jukka, I agree that the requirements are not always clear about how to deal with such errors.
Thanks for the pointers to the docker image Philippe On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 4:34 PM Rahkonen Jukka < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Philippe, > > I think that the WCS 2.0 standard is probably the best and least ambiguous > of all OGC W*S standards. However, the rule about mutually exclusive > parameters is somewhat fuzzy. But it is similarly fuzzy in WFS that also > has mutually exclusive parameters, but no other advise about what should > happen if client sends an invalid request than this: "Only one of a set of > mutually exclusive parameters shall be specified in a KVP-encoded request" > > I fear you are on your own when you decide what error to throw if the > client sends > > &SCALEFACTOR=2.0&SCALEAXES=i(3.5),j(3.5),k(2.0&SCALESIZE=i(1000),j(1000),k(10)&SCALEEXTENT=i(10:20),j(20:30) > > By the same you can decide what to do for an error that is not covered by > the standard &SCALEFACTOR=2.0&SCALEFACTOR=3.0 > > If you want, you can run the CITE tests also locally with teamengine > https://github.com/opengeospatial/teamengine. There are also Docker > images but I have not used them. One seems to be here > https://hub.docker.com/r/ogccite/teamengine-beta. > > -Jukka Rahkonen- > ________________________________________ > Lähettäjä: Philippe Ghesquiere <[email protected]> > Lähetetty: Tiistai 20. tammikuuta 2026 16.41 > Vastaanottaja: Rahkonen Jukka <[email protected]> > Kopio: MapServer Users <[email protected]> > Aihe: Re: [MapServer-users] WCS 2.0 : scaling extension and exceptions > > Hi Jukka,Thanks for your comprehensive explanations.I agree that Mapserver > is pretty close to be 100% OGC-compliant. My questions are a bit pedantic, > because we have requirements for the application we develop to be OGC > compliant. Your answers give me solid arguments to defend the fact that > Mapserver (and our application) has a correct behaviour. And I will use > them with our client :-)As of running the WCS 2.0 CITE tests against our > application, I do not know if we can do it easily : it runs on private > premises.Thanks for your helpPhilippeOn Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 9:58 AM > Rahkonen Jukka <[email protected]> wrote:Hi,I think > that you are reading the scaling extension standard correctly and a valid > GetCoverage request can contain only one of the four alternative scaling > operator. What is not clear to me, not by the scaling extension nor by the > WCS 2.0.1 core, is what error the server should give in such > case.InvalidParameterValue error is defined in OGC Common standard to mean > "Operation request contains an invalid parameter value". You are right that > the scaling extension defines a more exact error message for invalid > scaleFactor. It is wrong on the server side, but if the WCS client follows > the OGC Common standard it should still not fail "Because a client may not > always know what set of exceptionCode values are being used by a server, > all clients should be coded to allow exceptionCode values that it does not > recognize."I think I have been running the WCS 2.0 CITE tests > https://github.com/opengeospatial/ets-wcs20 with MapServer a few years > ago and I believe that some tests were failing. From GitHub I found only > this 12 years old ticket, that is resolved > https://github.com/MapServer/MapServer/pull/4737. If you want to run the > CITE tests and create an issue into GitHub about the failures it would be > nice. If your company would appreciate the OGC WCS Compliant tag, we would > appreciate all help that you can offer for achieving it.Generally speaking > I would say that despite probably not being fully complient, MapServer WCS > 2.0 works well for us at the National Land Survey of Finland.-Jukka > Rahkonen-________________________________________Lähettäjä: MapServer-users > <[email protected]> käyttäjän Philippe Ghesquiere > via MapServer-users <[email protected]> puolestaLähetetty: > Perjantai 16. tammikuuta 2026 19.35Vastaanottaja: MapServer Users < > [email protected]>Aihe: [MapServer-users] WCS 2.0 : scaling > extension and exceptionsDear all,I am testing WCS 2.0 GetCoverage > requests.I have some questions about the following requirements, concerning > scaling extension (see OGC 12-039)1) Req > 4 getCoverage-mutually-exclusiveA GetCoverage request containing a scaling > operation shall contain exactly one > of:Scal::scaleByFactor,Scal::scaleAxesByFactor,Scal::scaleToSize,and > Scal::scaleToExtentIf > a request contains more than one scaling operator, Mapserver does not > complain and takes the first one it checks (see > mapwcs20.cpp#L1097).Shouldn't it send an exception ?2) Req > 18 getCoverage-exception:When a WCS server encounters an error while > evaluating a scaleFactor or scaleExtentparameter in a GetCoverage operation > it shall return an exception report message chosenas indicated in Table 7 > with a locator parameter value as specified in the right columnof Table 7 > for each exceptionCode listed.Exception values in table 7 are > : InvalidCoverageType, InvalidScaleFactor, InvalidExtent or > ScaleAxisUndefinedIf a request contains a negative value for a scale > factor, Mapserver returns an exception :<ows:Exception > exceptionCode="InvalidParameterValue" locator="request"> > <ows:ExceptionText>msWCSParseRequest20_XMLGetCoverage(): WCS server error. > Invalid scaleFactor '-0.2'.</ows:ExceptionText></ows:Exception>However, the > exception type is InvalidParameterValue, which is not in table 7.Why > doesn't it report the expected exception type : InvalidScaleFactor > ?SincerelyPhilippeThe information in this e-mail is confidential. The > contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. > Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised.If you are not the > intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this > e-mail.Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or > completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If > you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or > Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately.All outgoing e-mails from > Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you > should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that > this message and any attachments are virus free.The information in this > e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone > other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is > unauthorised.If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus > immediately and delete this e-mail.Airbus cannot accept any responsibility > for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over > public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message > or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately.All > outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus > scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be > appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free.
_______________________________________________ MapServer-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users
