ngageoint / hootenanny

Hootenanny conflates multiple maps into a single seamless map.
GNU General Public License v3.0
356 stars 74 forks source link

Hootenanny fails when exporting to FGDB as TDS6.1 and MGCP #120

Closed mikejeffe closed 8 years ago

mikejeffe commented 8 years ago

Tested with some conflated sample data (MassNh_GIS_small & MassNh_OSM_small). Set OSM as layer1 and GIS as layer 2, got two reviews which I resolved. When I export as either TDS6.1 or MGCP I get failure and an error stack. Exporting to TDSv4.0 seems fine.

Here's the TDS error stack: 2015-12-08 14:01:08,242 ERROR JobResource:494 - Failed to execute.Error running osm2ogr: Error creating feature - OGR Error Code: (6) Feature causing error: ([99]{(ADR, No Information), (AOO, -999999), (ARA, -999999), (ATB, -999999), (AWP, -999999), (BEN, noInformation), (BNF, -999999), (BSU, ), (CAA, -999999), (CCN, No Information), (CDR, No Information), (COS, ), (ETY, ), (FCSUBTYPE, 100083), (FFN, -999999), (FFN2, -999999), (FFN3, -999999), (F_CODE, AL013), (GUG, ), (HEI, ), (HGT, -999999), (HST, -999999), (HST2, -999999), (HST3, -999999), (LMC, -999999), (LZN, -999999), (MFB, -999999), (MUB, -999999), (OTH, noInformation), (PCF, -999999), (PYC, ), (PYM, ), (RLE, -999999), (SAX_RS1, No Information), (SAX_RS2, No Information), (SAX_RS3, noInformation), (SAX_RS4, noInformation), (SAX_RS5, No Information), (SAX_RS6, noInformation), (SAX_RS8, No Information), (SAX_RS9, No Information), (SAX_RX1, noInformation), (SAX_RX2, noInformation), (SAX_RX5, noInformation), (SAX_RX6, noInformation), (SAX_RX7, noInformation), (SAX_RX8, noInformation), (SAX_RX9, No Information), (SAX_RY0, No Information), (SAX_RY1, noInformation), (SAX_RY2, noInformation), (SPT, ), (SRL, ), (SSR, -999999), (SSR2, -999999), (SSR3, -999999), (TEL, ), (TOS, ), (TTC, ), (TTC2, ), (TTC3, ), (UFI, 106b8d3d-4618-4535-9c26-93139c590def), (VCM, -999999), (VCM2, -999999), (VCM3, -999999), (VOI, noInformation), (WID, -999999), (ZI001_SDP, No Information), (ZI001_SDV, 2013-01-06T15:24:21Z;2013-01-04T00:15:54Z;2013-01-06T15:24:56Z;2013-01-06T15:25:45Z), (ZI001_SPS, -999999), (ZI001_SRT, noInformation), (ZI001_VSC, noInformation), (ZI001_VSD, noInformation), (ZI001_VSN, No Information), (ZI004_RCG, noInformation), (ZI005_FNA, No Information), (ZI005_NFN, No Information), (ZI006_MEM, No Information), (ZI014_PBY, -999999), (ZI014_PBY2, -999999), (ZI014_PBY3, -999999), (ZI014_PPO, -999999), (ZI014_PPO2, -999999), (ZI014_PPO3, -999999), (ZI014_PRW, -999999), (ZI014_PRW2, -999999), (ZI014_PRW3, -999999), (ZI018_WIT, -999999), (ZI020_GE4, noInformation), (ZI026_CTUC, 5), (ZI026_CTUL, -999999), (ZI026_CTUU, -999999), (ZI037_REL, -999999), (ZI037_RFA, -999999), (ZSAX_RS0, noInformation), (ZSAX_RX0, noInformation), (ZSAX_RX3, noInformation), (ZSAX_RX4, noInformation), (ZVH, -999999)}) make: *\ [step1] Error 255

mattjdnv commented 8 years ago

Update:

We need to ask the customer what value they would like to populate this attribute with on export:

Until we gen an answer, we are populating it with the first value in the list. This is being done in the TDSv61 translation applyToNfddPostProcessing function.

I have added an "isReview" method to Relation.cpp and have modified ogrWriter.cpp to account for reviews. The code will still throw warnings if it finds relations like "route" etc

drew-bower commented 8 years ago

Seems to me there's an implied follow on task to review this with the customer.

drew-bower commented 8 years ago

Let's make sure someone takes charge of that.

sisskind commented 8 years ago

@drew-bower this is tangential to another ticket I have. I will add this or create a new ticket with this info.

mikejeffe commented 8 years ago

Looked at the ZI001_SDV column and see the single date now. Should be good until we refine the requirement for how to handle this properly.