use npm version of marchingsquares (isobands/isolines) #1801
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Look like the CI failure is unrelated. |
smallsaucepan
added a commit
to smallsaucepan/turf
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 1, 2023
…s library from NPM. This commit supercedes PR Turfjs#1801 which is a few years old now. Resolves Turfjs#1797 based on a test case mentioned in that issue (added to unit tests in isobands). Slight changes to resulting coordinates in most fixtures, though all fixtures verified visually using geojson.io
smallsaucepan
added a commit
to smallsaucepan/turf
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 3, 2023
…s library from NPM. This commit supercedes PR Turfjs#1801 which is a few years old now. Resolves Turfjs#1797 based on a test case mentioned in that issue (added to unit tests in isobands). Slight changes to resulting coordinates in most fixtures, though all fixtures verified visually using geojson.io
smallsaucepan
added a commit
to smallsaucepan/turf
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 9, 2023
…s library from NPM. This commit supercedes PR Turfjs#1801 which is a few years old now. Resolves Turfjs#1797 based on a test case mentioned in that issue (added to unit tests in isobands). Slight changes to resulting coordinates in most fixtures, though all fixtures verified visually using geojson.io
smallsaucepan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 9, 2023
…st break" bug (#2527) * Migrating isobands and isolines to use the third party marchingsquares library from NPM. This commit supercedes PR #1801 which is a few years old now. Resolves #1797 based on a test case mentioned in that issue (added to unit tests in isobands). Slight changes to resulting coordinates in most fixtures, though all fixtures verified visually using geojson.io * Fixing turf-isolines to no longer ignore the first break passed. Where it looked like the unit tests have had a 0 break added as a work around e.g. 5 breaks but only 4 break properties, have removed the presumed workaround and reviewed test fixture output. Resolves #2129. * Rolling back cloning workaround from commit d7c5322. This appears to have been unnecessary, possibly already having been fixed by adding linearRing: false to the isoContours call.
|
I am still around, and happy to answer questions. I do not remember the context. Do you have any links that might jar my memory? |
|
Thankyou! It's this commit "small clean up to orderByArea": 88b159a Was that only to map-ify the code and make it more readable? Or was it to fix a bug? Looks like the old code might not have actually been comparing the area values? |
|
I think they are both correct. The old code did compare values, in the sort. The old code is |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This closes #1797 by moving to the maintained version of marchingsquares on npm.
The test are updated to match the new observed behavior. Is there a good way to recheck that it is still the correct answer?