Re: GSoc 2016: Final Reviews required

[PhilipNienhuis]

AMR_KELEG wrote
> 
> 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?
> 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?

That might be a good idea. But see below as regards boost versions.


> 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>
>   

To be sure I uninstalled boost-1.61.0 and downgraded to / installed
boost-1.60.0
Sure enough, the Matlab example went without a hitch then.

It not very reassuring that the polygon operations do not work with current
boost but only with the previous version..... :-)
I'd prefer that the polygon operations work with newest boost versions.

BTW 
I find that installing geometry-3.0.0 (beta) from your github account takes
a very long time to finish (some minutes) *after* the last compile and copy
step. Would you by any chance know what is happening then? Just copying the
binary modules into place shouldn't need that much time IMO. 
But maybe it is just the polybool compile step that takes so long;
installing packages is multi-threaded these days so it could be that the
copy step is just hanging until polybool compilation is finalized.

Anyway, as I announced earlier this week I've made a start with comparing
the various function versions (ispolycw etc.) to see which ones would be the
best and how those could be incorporated in the geometry/mapping packages.

Philip




--
View this message in context: 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/GSoc-2016-Final-Reviews-required-tp4679299p4679342.html
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.