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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[bugfix] isochrone geojson bbox is now compliant, #493 #497

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 11, 2019
Merged

[bugfix] isochrone geojson bbox is now compliant, #493 #497

merged 3 commits into from
Apr 11, 2019

Conversation

nilsnolde
Copy link
Contributor

Pull Request Checklist

  • 1. I have rebased the latest version of the development branch into my feature branch and all conflicts have been resolved.
  • 2. I have added information about the change/addition to functionality to the CHANGELOG.md file under the [Unreleased] heading.
  • 3. I have documented my code using JDocs tags.
  • 4. I have removed unnecessary commented out code, imports and System.out.println statements.
  • 5. I have written JUnit tests for any new methods/classes and ensured that they pass.
  • 6. I have created API tests for any new functionality exposed to the API.
  • 7. If changes/additions are made to the app.config file, I have added these to the app.config wiki page on github along with a short description of what it is for, and documented this in the Pull Request (below).
  • 8. I have built graphs with my code of the Heidelberg.osm.gz file and run the api-tests with all test passing
  • 9. I have referenced the Issue Number in the Pull Request (if the changes were from an issue).
  • 10. For new features or changes involving building of graphs, I have tested on a larger dataset (at least Germany) and the graphs build without problems (i.e. no out-of-memory errors).
  • 11. For new features or changes involving the graphbuilding process (i.e. changing encoders, updating the importer etc.), I have generated longer distance routes for the affected profiles with different options (avoid features, max weight etc.) and compared these with the routes of the same parameters and start/end points generated from the current live ORS. If there are differences then the reasoning for these MUST be documented in the pull request.
  • 12. I have written in the Pull Request information about the changes made including their intended usage and why the change was needed.

Fixes #493 .

Information about the changes

  • Key functionality added: BBOX object in isochrone GeoJSON response wasn't compliant with the format specs. Now it has the right order of coordinates.

@nilsnolde nilsnolde requested a review from rabidllama April 11, 2019 07:14
@rabidllama rabidllama merged commit 360ca67 into release_5.1 Apr 11, 2019
@rabidllama rabidllama deleted the bugfix-#493-wrong_bbox_order branch April 11, 2019 08:25
TimMcCauley pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 23, 2019
@nilsnolde
[bugfix] isochrone geojson bbox is now compliant, #493 (#497)
0779364 
* [bugfix] isochrone geojson bbox is now compliant

* add isochrone bbox api-test

* changelog update
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@rabidllama rabidllama rabidllama approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@nilsnolde @rabidllama