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

ComponentGeoCoding from master #305

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: 8.x.calvalus
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

SabineEmbacher
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@martin-boettcher martin-boettcher self-assigned this Sep 27, 2021
Copy link
Contributor

@martin-boettcher martin-boettcher left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There are many cosmetic changes and additions of a header that make it difficult to identify the changes relevant for the issue. I am therefore not sure I found all of them.
It seems to me the intention of the (accumulating) parameter pixelPos in functions that also return the pixelPos is that if we pass a parameter value here we will get it back. Else, a new one will be created. Since we pass one, the assignment afterwards is a duplication and should be avoided. Example: PixelGeoInverseIndex.getPixelPos() . There is at least one other location.

@marpet
Copy link
Member

marpet commented Sep 27, 2021

Yes, the issue was in the DistanceWeightingInterpolator.
21e48e3

Sometimes it changed the incomming PixelPos instance and sometimes it returned a new instance. In the commit above I made it consistent. In the Interpolator a reuse of the PixelPos instance is not intended. While it is for getPixelPos in InverseCoding. That's why the values need to be copied to the existing PixelPos.

@marpet
Copy link
Member

marpet commented Apr 18, 2023

@SabineEmbacher @martin-boettcher

Is this still releavant? Or can we clode the PR and delete the 8.x.calvalus_cgc branch?

@SabineEmbacher
Copy link
Contributor Author

SabineEmbacher commented Apr 18, 2023

@marpet
Since this is already 2 years old, I think it is no longer relevant.

But this must bei decided by @martin-boettcher

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLA assistant check
Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants