search

opengeospatial / geoparquet

Specification for storing geospatial vector data (point, line, polygon) in Parquet
https://geoparquet.org
Apache License 2.0
800 stars 56 forks source link

Schema version invalid #177

Closed m-mohr closed 1 year ago

m-mohr commented 1 year ago

The version number in the schema is invalid. It is 1.0.0-dev instead of 1.0.0-rc.1

See https://github.com/opengeospatial/geoparquet/releases/download/v1.0.0-rc.1/schema.json

See also: https://github.com/opengeospatial/geoparquet/issues/147#issuecomment-1653306348

m-mohr commented 1 year ago

The geoparquet.md also says "1.0.0-dev": https://github.com/opengeospatial/geoparquet/releases/download/v1.0.0-rc.1/geoparquet.md

I assume there could be more instances where the replacement doesn't work. Or you forgot to just update the references in #176, but as there was no response to my comment I assumed there would be some kind of replacement magic happen in the release process.

The archives, e.g. https://github.com/opengeospatial/geoparquet/archive/refs/tags/v1.0.0-rc.1.zip, are similarly broken.

tschaub commented 1 year ago

Yeah, I was just starting to address this.

I wrote up these steps for creating a release: https://github.com/opengeospatial/geoparquet/wiki/Release-Process

These steps include updating the version numbers scattered throughout the repo before creating the release tag.

At this point, I think it would be fine to delete the rc.1 tag and start over with the steps on the above wiki page.

I would do this, except I am wrestling with the python dependencies required by the scripts that update the example data and example metadata. If anybody can update the instructions to get set up to run the python in the scripts directory, please do so.

kylebarron commented 1 year ago

I would do this, except I am wrestling with the python dependencies required by the scripts that update the example data and example metadata. If anybody can update the instructions to get set up to run the python in the scripts directory, please do so.

What's the issue you're hitting here?

tschaub commented 1 year ago

Failure to install pyarrow. It looks like I had a brew installed version of poetry. Trying again using the poetry installer.

m-mohr commented 1 year ago

Great, thanks.

I wrote up these steps for creating a release: https://github.com/opengeospatial/geoparquet/wiki/Release-Process

Maybe put them in a release.md in the main repo? That's much more common, I never even expect someone using/filling the Wiki...

kylebarron commented 1 year ago

Oh I just tried to install it on my M1 Mac and it failed because it's still using pygeos and that is trying to compile from source for some reason.

Is anyone still using write_nz_building_outline.py or can/should we delete it? @cholmes was the only one I knew who was using it I think.

tschaub commented 1 year ago

As you may guess, the release process is not entirely ironed out. I find the wiki easier to edit than creating pull requests for each tweak. But contributions adding a release.md that points to the wiki are welcome. And when everything is solid, we can get rid of the wiki page in favor of a release.md file if people want.

Update: #181 adds a RELEASE.md doc.

tschaub commented 1 year ago

I created #178 with some additional detail on the failure I'm hitting with a "fresh" poetry install. Not entirely sure how to start over (perhaps I have stale/conflicting/outdated/bad things installed), but I'll keep trying.

tschaub commented 1 year ago

https://github.com/opengeospatial/geoparquet/blob/v1.0.0-rc.1/format-specs/schema.json now has the correct version number (updated in https://github.com/opengeospatial/geoparquet/pull/182/commits/6a9c43ef6b8a72e5c56ff12f8f9152062900887f).

cholmes commented 1 year ago

Hey all, thanks for the help on this - I appreciate it, and sorry for messing it up. Thanks for fixing up my mess.

tschaub commented 1 year ago

No problem, @cholmes. @m-mohr was right that the release doc on the wiki page was not easy to find - I even forgot having written it. It was good to tidy up a few things as a result of this. I think #180 is one thing that warrants further discussion before 1.0.