Implements "largest" and "whole" policies with "point" placement
in a new apply_markers helper function. Uses it from AGG.
Add support for "multi-policy" in marker symbolizer (#1555)
Use apply_markers from cairo renderer (#1555)
Add testcase for marker-multi-policy
It appears this is missing modifications to src/grid/process_markers_symbolizer.cpp. Am I seeing that right?.
Probably. Testing those modifications locally (I hope "make test" is enough to trust them)
Uhm, I get a lot of failures on "make test", is that expected ?
Ran 507 tests in 21.814s
FAILED (TODO=5, errors=4, failures=27)
Use apply_markers in grid mark processor
Well I get those failures before the modification too, so yes, it's expected.
Pushed new commit implementing the grid part (no testcase for it yet)
Can you post a gist of all the test output you get?
Those failures are bad - looks to me like you are running tests against a completely different mapnik version, likely quite old.
tests are passing for me. How about you not worry about this for now (tonight). I know its late for you. I will take a look now. Check back in the morning.
add marker-multi-policy parameter to support user-configurable render…
…ing behavior for multi-geometries when using either point or interior placement - closes #1573, refs #1555
In f39c3ad I:
Thank you Dane !
Should we file another issue to see this ported to 2.1.x ? Or could master possibly be re-targetted to 2.1.1 ?
Yes. It will need to be very carefully ported to 2.1.x branch (soon to be 2.1.1), if that is what you need. Master has enough new stuff and is a long way towards 2.2.
Add marker-multi-policy parameter
This is to support user-configurable rendering behavior for
multi-geometries when using either point or interior placement
See #1573 and #1555
I found a problem with this, due to:
marker_multi_policy != 'each' has no effect with marker_placement != 'point'
Basically when specifying marker-multi-policy:whole and marker-placement:line the renderer simply doesn't render anything !
If I'm understanding correctly I should ignore the above comment, as the issue is actually different and tracked at #1591?
Yes, ignore the comment. Sorry for the noise.