WFS Server featureid parameter doesn't like typename containing a dot. #4925

Closed
gsueur opened this Issue May 12, 2014 · 8 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@gsueur
Contributor

gsueur commented May 12, 2014

when playing with this kind of request :
https://download.data.grandlyon.com/wfs/grandlyon?SERVICE=WFS&REQUEST=GetFeature&typename=fpc_fond_plan_communaut.fpcbaticonstruction&VERSION=2.0.0&featureid=fpc_fond_plan_communaut.fpcbaticonstruction.1

if your typename contains a dot, it doesn't work. You have this message : msWFSGetFeature(): WFS server error. Invalid FeatureId in GetFeature. Expecting layername.value : fpc_fond_plan_communaut.fpcbaticonstruction.1

Best regards

@tomkralidis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tomkralidis

tomkralidis May 12, 2014

Member

👍 I'm facing the same issue.

Member

tomkralidis commented May 12, 2014

👍 I'm facing the same issue.

@gsueur

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gsueur

gsueur May 13, 2014

Contributor

And it ain't cool for Inspire harmonized layer names...

Contributor

gsueur commented May 13, 2014

And it ain't cool for Inspire harmonized layer names...

@sdlime

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sdlime

sdlime May 13, 2014

Member

Are the dots legal in a layer/type name? I assume yes, and if so it should be a relatively easy fix around line 2326 in mapwfs.c. We'd need to change that conditional to be nTokens1 >= 2 and then change the next bit of code to be more generic to push the last token onto the aFIDValues array and the proceeding tokens (joined on a .) onto the aFIDLayers array. --Steve

Member

sdlime commented May 13, 2014

Are the dots legal in a layer/type name? I assume yes, and if so it should be a relatively easy fix around line 2326 in mapwfs.c. We'd need to change that conditional to be nTokens1 >= 2 and then change the next bit of code to be more generic to push the last token onto the aFIDValues array and the proceeding tokens (joined on a .) onto the aFIDLayers array. --Steve

@gsueur

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gsueur

gsueur May 13, 2014

Contributor

In a MapServer point of view I don't know, but it is mandatory in some context like INSPIRE in Europe. See http://boundlessgeo.com/2012/04/inspire-harmonized-layer-names-in-geoserver/ for example.

Contributor

gsueur commented May 13, 2014

In a MapServer point of view I don't know, but it is mandatory in some context like INSPIRE in Europe. See http://boundlessgeo.com/2012/04/inspire-harmonized-layer-names-in-geoserver/ for example.

@tomkralidis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tomkralidis

tomkralidis May 13, 2014

Member

It's legal to have dots.

Member

tomkralidis commented May 13, 2014

It's legal to have dots.

@sdlime

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sdlime

sdlime May 13, 2014

Member

I’ll try and post a patch later today. --Steve

From: Tom Kralidis [mailto:notifications@github.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:11 AM
To: mapserver/mapserver
Cc: Lime, Steve D (MNIT)
Subject: Re: [mapserver] WFS Server featureid parameter doesn't like typename containing a dot. (#4925)

It's legal to have dots.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/mapserver/mapserver/issues/4925#issuecomment-42968007.

Member

sdlime commented May 13, 2014

I’ll try and post a patch later today. --Steve

From: Tom Kralidis [mailto:notifications@github.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:11 AM
To: mapserver/mapserver
Cc: Lime, Steve D (MNIT)
Subject: Re: [mapserver] WFS Server featureid parameter doesn't like typename containing a dot. (#4925)

It's legal to have dots.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/mapserver/mapserver/issues/4925#issuecomment-42968007.

rouault added a commit that referenced this issue May 17, 2014

@sdlime

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sdlime

sdlime May 20, 2014

Member

I posted a patch against the 6.4 branch here: http://maps1.dnr.state.mn.us/test/mapserver/4925.patch. It's untested but it's a pretty straight forward fix.I see that Even also has included a fix in a recent commit that's probably more efficient. Can someone test?

Member

sdlime commented May 20, 2014

I posted a patch against the 6.4 branch here: http://maps1.dnr.state.mn.us/test/mapserver/4925.patch. It's untested but it's a pretty straight forward fix.I see that Even also has included a fix in a recent commit that's probably more efficient. Can someone test?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment