Skip to content

Add support for S_CONTAINS, S_WITHIN, S_DISJOINT spatial operations #372

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
May 10, 2025

Conversation

TravisYeah
Copy link
Contributor

Related Issue(s):

Description:
Add support for S_CONTAINS, S_WITHIN, S_DISJOINT spatial operations.

PR Checklist:

  • Code is formatted and linted (run pre-commit run --all-files)
  • Tests pass (run make test)
  • Documentation has been updated to reflect changes, if applicable
  • Changes are added to the changelog

@jonhealy1
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @TravisYeah, this looks really cool. Can you lint the code so the tests will start. A pre-commit run --all-files. You may need to pre-commit install first. Thank you.

@TravisYeah
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jonhealy1 thanks for the quick look. Fixed the formatting and the pre-commit passed now.

@jonhealy1 jonhealy1 requested a review from jamesfisher-geo May 9, 2025 03:50
@jonhealy1
Copy link
Collaborator

@TravisYeah These tests pass locally? I am not sure what the issue is immediately ..

@jonhealy1
Copy link
Collaborator

Only the within tests are failing?

@jonhealy1
Copy link
Collaborator

jonhealy1 commented May 9, 2025

The polygon dimensions in the test item and the polygon dimensions in the tests for the within operator are exactly the same? Maybe the polygon in the test has to be inside the one in the test item? Try running make test locally if you haven't yet.

@TravisYeah
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jonhealy1 I was only running the elasticsearch tests and it seems that the opensearch within operator is more strict by default but I fixed the test to work for both now.

@jonhealy1 jonhealy1 requested a review from rhysrevans3 May 9, 2025 16:13
jonhealy1
jonhealy1 previously approved these changes May 9, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonhealy1 jonhealy1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@TravisYeah Looks great. I am going to wait to merge this for a couple days just in case anyone else has any comments. Thanks.

@jonhealy1 jonhealy1 self-requested a review May 10, 2025 04:11
@jonhealy1 jonhealy1 merged commit c1d9ca8 into stac-utils:main May 10, 2025
15 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants