Skip to content

Conversation

dl3sdo
Copy link
Member

@dl3sdo dl3sdo commented Oct 3, 2025

The geospatial vector export shall not export objects with hidden or helper symbols.
However, if the "Create a layer for each symbol" setting in the GDAL/OGR configuration was not set then objects with hidden or helper symbols would not be excluded.

The geospatial vector export shall not export objects with hidden or
helper symbols.
However, if the "Create a layer for each symbol" setting in the
GDAL/OGR configuration was not set then objects with hidden or
helper symbols would not be excluded.
@dl3sdo
Copy link
Member Author

dl3sdo commented Oct 5, 2025

ChatGPT (and me) propose a better commit message:
Previously, objects with hidden or helper symbols were exported if the “Create a layer for each symbol” option in the GDAL/OGR configuration was disabled.
This change ensures that such objects are always excluded, independent of the configuration.

@dg0yt
Copy link
Member

dg0yt commented Oct 5, 2025

I prefer concise commit messages, and so far I prefer to not be bothered with reviewing LLM output.

@dg0yt
Copy link
Member

dg0yt commented Oct 8, 2025

Hm, noticing a mismatch between function name and function result 🤔

The original design was:
These functions really test only symbol type. (ìs_point_symbol).
Helper symbols and hidden symbols are excluded by creating a curated list of symbols first (auto symbols = symbolsForExport();). This list is also useful for populating the style table.

But the "per-symbol layers" export doesn't use the curated list when populating the layers.

Merge the code sections for creating one layer per symbol and one layer
per symbol type.
@dl3sdo dl3sdo requested a review from dg0yt October 10, 2025 12:58
@dl3sdo
Copy link
Member Author

dl3sdo commented Oct 10, 2025

@dg0yt: thank you for your feedback. That led me to reconsider the current solution, and I believe I’ve found a more elegant approach.

@dl3sdo
Copy link
Member Author

dl3sdo commented Oct 11, 2025

Now merging everything in an unified approach.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants