Added srsName param to the spatial filter configuration #2449
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
ghost
added
offtherailz
approved these changes
Dec 4, 2017
offtherailz
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 4, 2017
This reverts commit d4d5e9f.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
This pr introduce a fix on the crs used to query the features via wvs in the spatialFilter custom.
Issues
Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements
What kind of change does this PR introduce? (check one with "x", remove the others)
What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here)
without this srsParam it was using the default one for which was not working for certain layers which had a different crs.
What is the new behavior?
Actually the srsParam name is added to the wfs requests and used by openlayers in order to reproject them correctly.
Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (check one with "x", remove the other)