[CITE-Forum] wfs-1.1.0-Basic-GetFeature-tc200.2 test returnsInvalidParameterValue

[Eddie Curtis]

Thanks for the clarification.
Does anyone know if there will be a patch release of the WFS 1.1 schema to deal with the error?

Eddie

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Martell [mailto:rmartell at galdosinc.com] 
Sent: 10 September 2010 20:59
To: Eddie Curtis; cite-forum at lists.opengeospatial.org
Subject: RE: [CITE-Forum] wfs-1.1.0-Basic-GetFeature-tc200.2 test returnsInvalidParameterValue



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 
around.

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).


--
rjm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> cite-forum-bounces+rmartell=galdosinc.com at lists.opengeospatial
> .org 
> [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 
> returnsInvalidParameterValue
> 
> 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?
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Eddie Curtis
> 
>