Thank you Matthias, those future optimization possibilities sound really
exciting.
Based on all your responses so far, I think I'd summarize that Processing
script developers should always go for the feature sink parameter
QgsProcessingParameterFeatureSink.
Given the info Nyall shared with
On 10/23/22 16:02, Alan Mick via QGIS-Developer wrote:
I am sorry for spamming the list with this request, but I have tried multiple
times to remove myself and have not been successful. Would someone please
remove me from the list? Thank you!
Done
Richard Duivenvoorde
I am sorry for spamming the list with this request, but I have tried
multiple times to remove myself and have not been successful. Would
someone please remove me from the list? Thank you!
___
QGIS-Developer mailing list
QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org
Hi Anita,
A QgsFeatureSink is an interface for accepting features. This can be a
QgsVectorLayer but does not have to be one. It can also be a spatial index,
a vector file writer or others.
I.e. your algorithm specifies that it produces "features" which can be sent
to a vector layer, another
Thank you very much, Thomas. This code comparison approach is very useful
indeed.
If FeatureSink covers all functions of VectorDestination and more, that still
leaves me wonder what is the downside of a FeatureSink
"Note: Consider using the more flexible QgsProcessingParameterFeatureSink
Hi all,
it seems something weird happened in the latest generation of the
translation string qgis_*.ts files or in the sync process with Transifex
for QGIS 3.28.0 and master.
Some "translation" string in English are different from the
corresponding "source" string and contains some spurious
This should work when working with SingleLabels
layer = iface.activeLayer()
settings = layer.labeling().settings()
textFormat = settings.format()
textFormat.setSize(20);
settings.setFormat(textFormat)
layer.labeling().setSettings(settings)
hope it helps
El vie, 21 oct 2022 a las 18:18, Hugh
