Interesting, didn't know about it either.
I guess we (OpenGeo) should add it to the roadmap so that we make sure
to put the resources and schedule?
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Justin Deoliveira
wrote:
> Don't know much about it. Not sure if Gabriel has looked at it or not, he is
> currently
Don't know much about it. Not sure if Gabriel has looked at it or not, he
is currently on leave at the moment.
That said I agree it would be nice. The painful part of the tests are the
relatively new test suites that are ridden with bugs. It takes a lot of
time to track them down, although once yo
Hi,
I've just noticed, almost by accident, that OGC is apparently developing a
CITE test suite for WMTS:
https://svn.opengeospatial.org/ogc-projects/cite/scripts/wmts/1.0.0/trunk/
It's still not officially out, but wondering if anyone knows more about it.
Would be nice to also have
GWC be certifie
Honestly I never got the new cite engine working for wfs 1.1.0 on that release.
There was a break in compliance and Justin got the cite tests through after
fixing it, from memory, so it was done.
Mark Leslie
Geospatial Software Architect
LISAsoft
---
Mark,
was CITE WFS 1.1.0 testing performed for the GeoServer 2.0.1 release? We
are trying to diagnose a failure and the suspect change went into 2.0.x
on 11 December, so should also have broken 2.0.1.
Did your CITE WFS 1.1.0 tests pass?
Kind regards,
--
Ben Caradoc-Davies
Software Engineeri
Hiya everyone,
I need the legacy file and test source to perform the CITE test for
GeoServer 2.0.2 release. I am following the instructions from
http://docs.geoserver.org/stable/en/developer/cite-test-guide/index.html#cite-test-guide
"To check out the test sources an account on the OGG portal i
Note this is a very specific test of a particula aspect,
The four basics of GML simple features level 2 profiles we dont support yet are
1) inheritance of feature types (= attribnutes from multiple namespaces)
2) ability to xlink to reference element values instead of embedded
inline encodings
3)
Ben Caradoc-Davies ha scritto:
> On 12/10/09 23:07, Chris Holmes wrote:
>> One thing that would be a nice target for app-schema though is the
>> 'complex feature' tests. GeoServer has never passed them, but
>> app-schema opens the possibility. I think they're actually pretty basic
>> once the app
On 11/10/09 23:30, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
[app-schema for xlink]
> I brought up the issue and briefly how I had to patch it on the mailing
> list but the discussion ended in Ben asking for some test cases, which I
> totally agreed with just did not have the time to follow through on.
Rob, I thin
On 12/10/09 23:07, Chris Holmes wrote:
> One thing that would be a nice target for app-schema though is the
> 'complex feature' tests. GeoServer has never passed them, but
> app-schema opens the possibility. I think they're actually pretty basic
> once the app-schema infrastructure is there. Has
I'm +1 on dropping xlink cite compliance for 2.0. I personally think
xlink wfs is a silly operation. And don't know that it's even worth
spending time on later. 1.7.x can serve as the xlink reference
implementation, indeed if we wanted to certify 2.0.x as xlink compliant
we'd have to pay.
O
Rob Atkinson wrote:
> app-schema is stuck on GEOT-2505 for xlink and any other gml data type
> attribute support. Hopefully we can get a chance to deal with this at
> FOSS4G :-)
Really, because I was able to encode xlinks with app-schema just fine,
just the way things are implemented at the datas
app-schema is stuck on GEOT-2505 for xlink and any other gml data type
attribute support. Hopefully we can get a chance to deal with this at
FOSS4G :-)
I am not aware of any proposed changes, especially any proposals "not
accepted" by the app-schema team - is there some changes proposed on a
back-
Andrea Aime wrote:
> Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
>> Ok, looked into the test failures. And bottom line is that the hacks
>> put in place for xlink are tripping over work done by the app-schema
>> folks. Before app-schema was in place i was free to make wild
>> assumptions and hack to high he
You have to explicitly specify to run the xlink tests, so very easy,
just don't click the check box :)
Jody Garnett wrote:
> Okay quick sanity check question; can we "turn off" support for xlink
> and have the cite test skip that part? I am only focused on if we can
> make a release candidate t
Okay quick sanity check question; can we "turn off" support for xlink
and have the cite test skip that part? I am only focused on if we can
make a release candidate today or not; and if we can make use of
volunteers for to help test.
I am with Justin; ditch xlink support; get 2.0 out the doo
Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
> Ok, looked into the test failures. And bottom line is that the hacks put
> in place for xlink are tripping over work done by the app-schema folks.
> Before app-schema was in place i was free to make wild assumptions and
> hack to high heaven to get things working.
Ok, looked into the test failures. And bottom line is that the hacks put
in place for xlink are tripping over work done by the app-schema folks.
Before app-schema was in place i was free to make wild assumptions and
hack to high heaven to get things working. But now that certain types
and bindi
Apologies for the late reply. I have been swamped with foss4g prep. But
will look into the xlink failures now. Will report back when i have made
some progress.
Andrea Aime wrote:
> Jody Garnett ha scritto:
>
>>> Summary
>>> -
>>>
>>> Hmmm... I can package the rel
Jody Garnett ha scritto:
>> Summary
>> -
>>
>> Hmmm... I can package the release tomorrow
>> I guess, but xlink tests are failing.
>> Suggestions?
>
> We would not issue dot release with cite failures; so I think we are
> stuck on making the release candidate.
I
On 10/10/2009, at 5:47 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:
> Here we have failures... given they are xlink
> related there is a chance the app-schema
> related changes have something to do with it?
>
> The tests failing are:
> Test wfs:wfs-1.1.0-Basic-GetFeature-tc302.1
> Test wfs:wfs-1.1.0-Basic-GetFeature-tc
Here is a summary of the CITE tests results for the current
trunk (soon to become 2.0-RC2).
WFS 1.0
--
I have problems running this one with
the new engine, keep on getting stylesheet
errors which do appear like issues with
the test script itself...
So I've run th
22 matches
Mail list logo
