[CITE-Forum] wfs-1.1.0-Basic-GetFeature-tc200.2 test returnsInvalidParameterValue
rmartell at galdosinc.com
Fri Sep 10 15:59:04 EDT 2010
Yes, 200.2 is an invalid request entity. The empty ogc:PropertyName
element present in the original request was intended to verify this
BBOX requirement in Filter 1.1, cl. 8.2:
"If the optional <propertyName> element is not specified, the
calling service must determine which spatial property is the spatial
key and apply the BBOX operator accordingly. For feature types that
has a single spatial property, this is a trivial matter."
The inconsistency between the (normative) text and the on-line filter
1.1 schema has been pointed out; supplying an empty element is a work
Now, 203.3 is intended to raise an exception but shouldn't do so in
its current form: the request entity should specify a PropertyName
that is _not_ "sf:attribut.Géométrie" (e.g. sf:attributGeometrie).
> -----Original Message-----
> cite-forum-bounces+rmartell=galdosinc.com at lists.opengeospatial
> [mailto:cite-forum-bounces+rmartell=galdosinc.com at lists.openge
> ospatial.org] On Behalf Of Eddie Curtis
> Sent: Friday, 10 September, 2010 08:12
> To: cite-forum at lists.opengeospatial.org
> Subject: [CITE-Forum] wfs-1.1.0-Basic-GetFeature-tc200.2 test
> Hi All,
> We are having a problem with test 200.2 - our WFS is failing
> because it returns an XML validation error on the input
> getFeature request.
> I see from the CITE issues (issue 543) that the was changed
> recently because the schema was deemed to be inconsistent
> with the specification. This is clearly the correct
> interpretation of the specification but it puts us in a catch
> 22 situation. Some other tests require us to validate the
> incoming getFeature request, but validating getFeature
> requests causes us to fail this test.
> Can anyone offer guidance on how we should proceed? And will
> there be a patch to WFS 1.1 schema?
> Eddie Curtis
More information about the CITE-Forum