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

Improve implementation of QGIS WFS paging and max number of features options #26767

Closed
qgib opened this issue May 10, 2018 · 7 comments
Closed
Labels
Data Provider Related to specific vector, raster or mesh data providers Feature Request

Comments

@qgib
Copy link
Contributor

qgib commented May 10, 2018

Author Name: Ian Harrison (Ian Harrison)
Original Redmine Issue: 18935

Redmine category:web_services_clients/wfs
Assignee: Even Rouault


FEEDBACK NEEDED

CURRENTLY
The WFS max features option in the Modify WFS Connection settings is difficult for users to understand as it behaves differently depending on the version of WFS:

  • Leaving max features box empty and choosing wfs v 2.0.0: Uses paging with the page size set to the WFS server default page size. Returns all features in the layer.
  • Putting a number in max feature box and choosing wfs v 2.0.0: Uses paging with the page size set to the specified max features for better performance. Returns all features in the layer.
  • Putting number in max feature box and choosing wfs v 1.0.0 or v 1.1.0 (which don't support paging): Gets only specified number of features.

SUGGESTED ENHANCEMENT
To make it more clear for users I suggest the following:

  • If max number of features is specified this should limit the results to this number of features regardless of WFS version. If left empty the server default applies.
  • Add WFS Option to allow users to enable paging and set a page size.
  • If a user selects WFS version 1.0.0 or 1.1.0 paging should be disabled.
  • If a user selects WFS version 2.0.0 paging should be enabled with a default start index of 0, and the server default page size which the user can override.

If there is general consensus on the best way to improve this LINZ is looking a funding this as an enhancement.

@qgib
Copy link
Contributor Author

qgib commented May 10, 2018

Author Name: Even Rouault (@rouault)


Sounds good to me

@qgib
Copy link
Contributor Author

qgib commented May 11, 2018

Author Name: Alessandro Pasotti (@elpaso)


Looks good to me.

Even, please correct if I'm wrong but the last time I worked on the WFS provider 2.x was not fully implemented, IIRC the transactional part wasn't complete.

@qgib
Copy link
Contributor Author

qgib commented May 11, 2018

Author Name: Even Rouault (@rouault)


Yes, WFS-Transactional 2.0 is not implemented

@qgib
Copy link
Contributor Author

qgib commented May 21, 2018

Author Name: Even Rouault (@rouault)


  • assigned_to_id was configured as Even Rouault

@qgib
Copy link
Contributor Author

qgib commented Jun 4, 2018

Author Name: Even Rouault (@rouault)


Implemented in #7170

@qgib
Copy link
Contributor Author

qgib commented Jun 22, 2018

Author Name: Even Rouault (@rouault)


Applied in changeset e998fcf.


  • status_id was changed from Open to Closed
  • done_ratio was changed from 0 to 100

@qgib qgib closed this as completed Jun 22, 2018
@qgib
Copy link
Contributor Author

qgib commented Jun 23, 2018

Author Name: Even Rouault (@rouault)


Implemented for QGIS 3.4


  • resolution was changed from to fixed/implemented

@qgib qgib added Feature Request Data Provider Related to specific vector, raster or mesh data providers labels May 25, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Data Provider Related to specific vector, raster or mesh data providers Feature Request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant