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
Strict option for cogeo validation #109
Conversation
thanks for the pr @pierotofy
|
I borrowed the "strict" term from compilers, where warnings do not preclude a program from being compiled or running properly, but I can rename it to something else if you want. I thought strict was more generic since it doesn't look just at overviews, but all warnings. |
@pierotofy good point. yeah |
Mm, |
@pierotofy sorry for being slow to catch up, I've changed my mind and Could you please add a |
No worries, life keeps all of us busy. I've made the changes as indicated, let me know if turher modifications are needed 👍 |
thanks @pierotofy |
Not very familiar with
I can add a test; do you have a fixture already made that doesn't have overviews? |
thanks @pierotofy I think I can take it from here ;-) |
Thanks @vincentsarago ! |
Hello ✋
I propose the addition of a "strict" flag to threat warnings as errors for the purposes of validation.
There are situations in which this might be desirable (eg. trying to determine whether a GeoTIFF is suited for streaming, overviews lacking are warnings, but affect performance significantly).