Re: GSoc 2016: Final Reviews required

[AMR_KELEG]

PhilipNienhuis wrote
> 
> AMR_KELEG wrote
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> 
>> First of all, I would like to thank all of you for giving me this great
>> opportunity to contribute to the GNU Octave project.
>> I enjoyed my summer this year working on this project with all the ups
>> and downs - motives and frustrations.
>> 
>> Special thanks goes to my Mentor Professor John Swenson.
>> Working with you was such a privilege.
>> 
>> 
>> I have to send my work to Google this week as part of my final evaluation
>> so i would like to share my clone of the Geometry package with you.
>> 
>> https://bitbucket.org/amr_keleg/octave-geometry/src/76898074c0f2bbf77cc38c6ff27609800c1baf2d?at=default
>> Kindly contact me if you have reviews/required edits.
> Amr,
> 
> Some test results.
> 
> I installed the header files belonging to boost-1_61-0.7z in /usr/include.
> 134 MB on disk, quite a bit IMO. (entire boost download would expand to
> 555 MB,still more excessive).
> 
> Next I've cloned your repo and made a geometry-3.0.0 package from it
> (incl. bootstrap)and built geometry-3.0.0 on both Linux and Windows.
> In both OS-es, pkg install mentions that "dissolve" isn't found and that
> boost needs an upgrade to >= 1.6 (while I have 1.61.0).  Do I need to
> install additional boost stuff alongside just the header files?
> 
> Then I tried the examples on the Mathworks site.
> (http://nl.mathworks.com/help/map/ref/polybool.html).
> A little worrying is that when trying the second example set, Octave
> crashes hard on the poly2fv call in the sixth block (subplot 2, 3, 6),
> both on Linux and Windows.
> Can you manage to fix that, please?
> 
> best wishes,
> 
> philip

Dear Philip,

I don't think you need to install additional boost stuff alongside the
header files.
This means that the dissolve header file that is extracted from the Boost
Geometry 1.60 extensions isn't working with Boost Geometry 1.61 .
IMO,I can add the new version of dissolve header file that is part of the
Boost Geometry 1.61 extensions to the package and add some checks to choose
between the two header files.
So,what do you think?

I tried the Matworks second test and it's working smoothly.
So,I attached a screenshot of the test/output figures.
Screenshot_from_2016-08-20_05-32-50.png
<http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/file/n4679337/Screenshot_from_2016-08-20_05-32-50.png>
  

I will write a blog post summarizing the new functions and i will also share
my tests for further development/bug fixes.

Best Regards,
Amr



--
View this message in context: 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/GSoc-2016-Final-Reviews-required-tp4679299p4679337.html
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.