added test cases for issue #852

[grundid]

The tests fail as expected.

[DenisCarriere]

Issue: #852

precision start point

[stebogit]

Ooops I just wanted to add my changes to @grundid's ones, but that (of course! 😞 ) actually merged his branch to mine. Sorry, I guess I should have merged with --no-ff...
This PR is still active, but the branch it refers doesn't exist anymore. Sorry again.
@DenisCarriere how can I fix this?

Anyway, I noticed increasing the precision of truncate to 7 or 8 (still above GeoJSON recommendations) solves 3 of the 4 new tests. The one still failing is the precision end point

[DenisCarriere]

I would pull down his branch and make the changes from there, don't know of an easy way to do that, it's only 2 files so I would end up doing it manually.

[DenisCarriere]

Not too sure if changing the decimal points of truncate would be the solution here, I think better handling of the exact start & end points would be a better approach.

Seems like it's having difficulties with exact coordinates, not too sure if we can exclude points from generating lines which are less then 10cm (0.000001 degrees) apart.

[DenisCarriere]

@stebogit That's what happens when you reply to GitHub issues on the bus 😆

[DenisCarriere]

@stebogit Add your commit to this branch

[stebogit]

Thanks @DenisCarriere to fixing my mess!
🤔 hmmm... so I need to clone geohub-plattform repo and commit to master, right?

[DenisCarriere]

That's correct, ideally we would create a branch on TurfJS, that way it's a bit easier to switch between branches.

[stebogit]

Ok, it should be fixed now.
@grundid could you please check this?

[DenisCarriere]

Sweet! 👍 Looks good to me

[DenisCarriere]

@grundid Just published a patch release for @turf/line-split@4.6.1 with these fixes. That way it's a bit easier to test on your side.