Skip to content
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

SR WFS Test - Reports invalid Geometry Operand #233

Closed
robblis opened this issue Jul 29, 2022 · 4 comments · Fixed by #237 or #255
Closed

SR WFS Test - Reports invalid Geometry Operand #233

robblis opened this issue Jul 29, 2022 · 4 comments · Fixed by #237 or #255
Assignees
Labels
Projects
Milestone

Comments

@robblis
Copy link

robblis commented Jul 29, 2022

Hi Validator Team,

We're testing our SR theme for the OGC WFS Validation.

We are getting some invalid Geometry Operand failures and some successes.
We're trying to understand what the issue could be.

The following shows the URL and POST body used for the test:

Method: POST
URL: https://inspiredemo.esri.com/arcgis/rest/services/sr_test/MapServer/exts/InspireFeatureDownload/service
Body:
<wfs:GetFeature xmlns:wfs="http://www.opengis.net/wfs/2.0" count="10" service="WFS"
version="2.0.0">
<wfs:Query xmlns:ns99="http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/schemas/sr/4.0"
typeNames="ns99:MarineCirculationZone"/>
</wfs:GetFeature>

The POST request seems to run okay if I use the GetFeature POST URL specified in the GetCapabilities XML: https://inspiredemo.esri.com/arcgis/services/sr_test/MapServer/InspireFeatureDownload

If I use the URL specified in the report then I get an exception:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?><ExceptionReport xmlns="http://www.opengis.net/ows/1.1" version="2.0.0" ><Exception exceptionCode="MissingParameterValue" locator="service" ><ExceptionText><![CDATA[Operation request does not include a parameter value, and this server did not declare a default value for that parameter.]]></ExceptionText><ExceptionText><![CDATA[Operation request does not include a parameter value, and this server did not declare a default value for that parameter. Bad request]]></ExceptionText></Exception></ExceptionReport>

However, I don't get the error reported in the test result:
java.lang.RuntimeException: Could not create envelope for feature type: {http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/schemas/sr/4.0}MarineCirculationZone

I have no way of determining what URL the test actually used when running the report other that what is reported.

Can we get some assistance?

I've attached the report to the case.

Thanks,
Robert

SR_WFS_Test_s0011.zip

@dstenger dstenger self-assigned this Aug 1, 2022
@dstenger dstenger added this to To do in CITE via automation Aug 1, 2022
@dstenger dstenger added the bug label Aug 1, 2022
@dstenger
Copy link
Contributor

dstenger commented Aug 1, 2022

Thank you for reporting.

I am able to reproduce your problem.

Indeed, this seems to be a bug being caused by the changes done in #214.

The usage of dataSampler was introduced which is not filled with all relevant values.

Envelope extent = this.dataSampler.getSpatialExtent(getModel(), featureType);
Document gmlEnv = null;
try {
gmlEnv = envelopeAsGML(extent);
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException("Could not create envelope for feature type: " + featureType);
}

@bpross-52n Can you please check why dataSampler was introduced here? Why can't the featureInfo map be used to retrieve the relevant values (please see referenced PR)?

@dstenger dstenger assigned bpross-52n and unassigned dstenger Aug 1, 2022
@dstenger dstenger moved this from To do to In progress in CITE Aug 11, 2022
@bpross-52n
Copy link
Contributor

First of all, the URL that is specified for POST requests in the capabilities of the service is used for POST requests.

However, Two things are going wrong:

  1. The wrong URL is shown on the test details page. This is due to a current limitation in Teamengine. We are creating an issue in the Teamengine repository for this.
  2. Like @dstenger mentioned, there is a bug in the WFS 2.0 test suite. That is the reason why the test fails inn the first place. We fixed this in this branch [1] and are going to merge it soon.

Let us know if you have any further questions.

[1] https://github.com/opengeospatial/ets-wfs20/tree/issue%23233

@dstenger
Copy link
Contributor

We created an issue for TEAM Engine describing the wrongly reported URL in HTML report: opengeospatial/teamengine#555

@dstenger dstenger added this to the 1.39 milestone Aug 25, 2022
@dstenger dstenger moved this from In progress to To verify in CITE Aug 25, 2022
@dstenger dstenger moved this from To verify to In progress in CITE Aug 25, 2022
@dstenger dstenger moved this from In progress to To verify in CITE Aug 25, 2022
@dstenger dstenger assigned dstenger and bpross-52n and unassigned bpross-52n and dstenger Aug 25, 2022
@dstenger dstenger moved this from To verify to In progress in CITE Aug 25, 2022
@dstenger dstenger moved this from In progress to To verify in CITE Sep 29, 2022
@dstenger dstenger assigned dstenger and unassigned bpross-52n Sep 29, 2022
dstenger added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 26, 2022
CITE automation moved this from To verify to Done Oct 26, 2022
@dstenger
Copy link
Contributor

Also changes in this this test suite are necessary. However, a precondition is that opengeospatial/teamengine#555 is solved.

@dstenger dstenger reopened this Feb 16, 2023
CITE automation moved this from Done to In progress Feb 16, 2023
@dstenger dstenger assigned bpross-52n and unassigned dstenger Mar 2, 2023
@dstenger dstenger modified the milestones: 1.39, 1.40 Mar 2, 2023
@bpross-52n bpross-52n mentioned this issue Mar 2, 2023
@bpross-52n bpross-52n linked a pull request Mar 2, 2023 that will close this issue
@dstenger dstenger moved this from In progress to To verify in CITE Mar 9, 2023
@dstenger dstenger assigned dstenger and unassigned bpross-52n Mar 9, 2023
CITE automation moved this from To verify to Done Mar 29, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
CITE
  
Done
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants