Display appellation layer

[linzbjones]

@billgeo Can we please get some of @SPlanzer time to have a look at displaying appellation in AIMS, the Addressing team view this as one of there biggest issues. We are going to be working on a appellation search in the near future.

[billgeo]

Sure. He's busy on another thing right now, but might be able to fit this in. Will schedule it in with him on Monday.

Although whatever he does for labels you'll probably want to reuse for appellation search. @linzbjones who will be working on the appellation search?

[linzbjones]

@billgeo we plan to get @LinzDSie to tackle appellation search. We plan to utilise the road search and get assistance from @pkinglinz

[billgeo]

@SPlanzer, can you look at this when you've finished the LDS SSP measure tool.

And if you build any views in the BDE processor work with @LinzDSie and try and make them re-useable for searching too (probably needs parsed appellation components).

I think we decided that materliazed views were the only way to make it perform in QGIS? But it looks like that can be problematic with triggers. http://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/95214/working-with-materialized-view.

Needs some R&D I think.

[billgeo]

@SPlanzer also, looks like LDS products are still turned on on prdassgeo02. Could be a simple option.

[palmerj]

@billgeo: Really? I thought we turned that off for performance reasons. Or is it some old unmaintained tables in the LDS schema?

[billgeo]

Don't know if it's being maintained or not?

[billgeo]

@LinzDSie and @SPlanzer just confirming that LDS products (including label friendly appellation data) is being maintained on prod 2 box.

Simon an easy interim fix could be using that in the QGIS map view? Downside would be that if one server doesn't update for some reason they'd be out of sync. Not sure how much impact that is for the addressing team.

[linzbjones]

@SPlanzer and @billgeo how is this going? Have we made any progress at getting appellation into AIMS. Currently the team are having to use Landonline and or LINZ Maps outside of AIMS to get the correct parcel.

[billgeo]

@linzbjones - I needed Simon to finish another piece of work first, but good to know the priority of this. @SPlanzer can update on when he is planning to fit this in.

[SPlanzer]

Hi @linzbjones

I am currently scoping this task. The best solution to the this involves using new functionality released as part of 2.10.

are you Ok with the addressing team testing the next release against the most current LTS (2.14.x Essen) with the goal of 2.14 becoming the min version for the plugin? i.e. they would all need to upgrade to QGIS 2.14.x

@dwsilk, do you foresee any issue that this may cause with the road plugin?

[dwsilk]

Just the need for a full regression test using 2.14 to ensure that there are no compatibility issues. Would also need to test the import_image plugin.

[linzbjones]

@SPlanzer I will need to have the team install 2.14 on and there G: drive and see if QGIS operates from there first.

I also agree with @dwsilk that both the roads and AIMS will need to go through a full regression.

What is your time frame on this? As @Deb-Jones would be the person to run through the full regression test.

[billgeo]

There are changes to the table versioning functions too (ready to go I believe) which could be tested at the same time.

[SPlanzer]

@linzbjones Ill have the parcel label functionality ready for testing by the end of next week (20 Jan)

[dwsilk]

@pkinglinz is having a look at whether there is a standalone version of QGIS 2.14 that we can run in OPA (equivalent to the version of QGIS 2.08 that is currently in use).

The proposed tableversion changes break AIMS / Roads code and require data migrations so unless there is a significant delay on this piece of work, the tableversion changes probably won't be ready for testing at the same time.

[SPlanzer]

Ready to test

[dwsilk]

As is the standalone version of QGIS 2.14 (via Pete)

[SPlanzer]

@Deb-Jones has Pete's version of this and will be testing using this

[billgeo]

@SPlanzer @Deb-Jones can this be closed now?

[SPlanzer]

This is awaiting the roll out of a more current QGIS version to OPA/DAAS so that the work can be signed tested and signed off

[billgeo]

2.14 is on DaaS. Is that what you need to complete this?

[SPlanzer]

Okay. I just checked the status of https://github.com/linz/LI-tasks/issues/19. I would prefer to keep this task open until testing has been conducted.

@Deb-Jones / @linzbjones can we schedule a roll out of this. When would work for you to do some testing? It would have to be some time after this week as I need to schedule a little time to support this.

[linzbjones]

@Deb-Jones can you please let @SPlanzer know when a good time is to test this.
Might be delayed with the recent issues that have been raised.

[Deb-Jones]

@linzbjones @SPlanzer this needs QGIS 2.14 or higher to roll out. Roads didn't work on 2.14 when last checked. I can check if it works on 2.14 but still couldn't roll it into prod until roads is tested on 2.14 and the bugs fixed.

[linzbjones]

@Deb-Jones I spoke to @dwsilk about the roads plug in and getting it working in 2.14. The GeoData team need to automate the plugin tests for the next phase of the roads project. This will be done on 2.8, so the plugin for 2.14 will not be ready until early July.

[dwsilk]

Note: https://github.com/linz/LI-tasks/issues/171 2.14.1 was installed on DaaS - missing 16~ patch versions of the LTR. DaaS still needs a QGIS upgrade to be compatible with plugins developed on later patch versions of 2.14. I am requesting that it be 2.18 since that is now the LTR.