#10514 - FeatureEditor filter by geometric area

[Gaetanbrl]

Description

This improvement will change the featureEditor plugin to allow to limit attributes table features loading by a geometric area (WKT or GeoJSON) for non ADMIN users.

This improvement don't use GeoFence and use a simple geometry.

https://groups.google.com/g/mapstore-developers/c/6KhmNTJzpDc/m/12J-2t9BAAAJ

Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements

• The commit message follows our guidelines: https://github.com/geosolutions-it/MapStore2/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md
• Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
• Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)

What kind of change does this PR introduce? (check one with "x", remove the others)

• Bugfix
• Feature
• Code style update (formatting, local variables)
• Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
• Build related changes
• CI related changes
• Other... Please describe:

Issue

What is the current behavior?

User can filter attribute table by custom filter or viewport.

#10514

What is the new behavior?

If configured, attribute table keep natives filters and use an additional geometric filter that can be create from URL (e.g geOrchestra restricted area) or from RAW (GEOJSON or WKT).

Breaking change

Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (check one with "x", remove the other)

• Yes, and I documented them in migration notes
• No

Other useful information

[tdipisa]

Hi @Gaetanbrl thank you for contributing. We will review asap.

[offtherailz]

Thank you for the PR. In this review I reported all the things that I found that may look unconsistent or problematic.

• see my comments inline
• The original proposal and issue was regarding to restrict editing, but in this implementation, also the view mode encounter this filter. Also this makes the things a little unclear. Maybe the filter should be applied only in edit mode?
• I found a bug that I didn't investigated, so I write about it here, instead of inline. With this tool active, I see an error of "max stack exceed" as well as I try to apply a quick filter.
  https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0193f17b-bfc2-41a2-a152-184e9482c445
  I didn't debug so I don't know the exact reason. Anyway using spatialField can problematic, because too related to the advanced filter form . I'd suggest to use "filters" instead, as reported in another inline comment.

[offtherailz]

Using this approach makes the sync with map not working. While it still makes sense with viewport filter (because the map already shows the features in map), here this makes things a little unconsistent, and it could be practical for the user to see only the allowed rows on the map. What do you think?

A more functional approach is to add / remove the filter to the query object, as well as the other filters, like quick filter, do.

The filters section recently added to the filter may help you to manage it in a easier way.

Basically you can add to the filter a section filters: that can contain and use cql filter to apply some additional logic.
You can identify these filters by id, adding your own property, to manage them (e.g. adding/removing).

[Gaetanbrl]

it could be practical for the user to see only the allowed rows on the map. What do you think?

Exactly, this is the expected behavior

Using this approach makes the sync with map not working.

Not really sur to understand. additionnalGridFilters methods is not dependent on the screen filter but but also uses it if activate. Maybe my code is wrong with I wanted to do.

Basically you can add to the filter a section filters: that can contain and use cql filter to apply some additional logic.

I will change the code to use filters section as you expect.

Thanks for this proposals @offtherailz .

[MV88]

is this done?

[Gaetanbrl]

Not yet.

[Gaetanbrl]

I will use this filter instead of spatialFilter :

    {
            "format": "cql",
            "version": "1.0.0",
            "body": `${restrictedAreaOperatorSelector(state)}(${attribute}, ${asWKT})`,
            "id": `[${uniqueId("cql_restricted_area_")}]`,
            "restrictedArea": true
    };

[Gaetanbrl]

@offtherailz Thank you for this detailed review.
I'll think about functional proposals with and try to plan technical changes.

[Gaetanbrl]

The source branch is now rebase / align with master (8e2d443)

[Gaetanbrl]

Anyway using spatialField can problematic, because too related to the advanced filter form . I'd suggest to use "filters" instead, as reported in another inline comment.

After read the filters doc it's not easy to identify what filter I need to use and how to use it correctly.

This doc say about spatialField (considered as problematic) :

For backward compatibility, the filters "mapstore" of version "1.0.0" can contain also several other fields that will be deprecated in the future in favor of a mapstore-query-panel format, that is the format used by the query panel, and currently mostly supported in MapStore. So a filter like this is still valid:

I guess this is a state changes to apply with a specific filter object.

But what should I replace the spatialFilter filter with ? logic or mapstore-query-panel or cql ?

This doc is a good practice overview but a How to use it part could increase developer experience.

I can enhance this doc if i correctly understand how to use it with a use case.

[Gaetanbrl]

Thank you for the PR. In this review I reported all the things that I found that may look unconsistent or problematic.

• see my comments inline
• The original proposal and issue was regarding to restrict editing, but in this implementation, also the view mode encounter this filter. Also this makes the things a little unclear. Maybe the filter should be applied only in edit mode?
• I found a bug that I didn't investigated, so I write about it here, instead of inline. With this tool active, I see an error of "max stack exceed" as well as I try to apply a quick filter.
  https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0193f17b-bfc2-41a2-a152-184e9482c445
  I didn't debug so I don't know the exact reason. Anyway using spatialField can problematic, because too related to the advanced filter form . I'd suggest to use "filters" instead, as reported in another inline comment.

After some discussions, we will make the expected changes (see comments).

Maybe the filter should be applied only in edit mode?

About this point, the natif request is to limit view by an area in edit mode and read mode.

The natif use case is to limit view and edition according to geOrchestra restricted area (this area is applied to the user's organization via geOrchestra console app).

So, we propose to add a configuration to manage 2 options :

• allow to restrict edition only (to take your request into account)
• allow to restrict edition and view

I see an error of "max stack exceed" as well as I try to apply a quick filter.

Needs investigation. I've seen this error before with CQL filters and geoServer limits (cross layer filter limit ?).

[Gaetanbrl]

@offtherailz Thank you so much for previous feedback. But I need another one to continue.

[MV88]

Hi @Gaetanbrl I resumed the review recently and i think you are still working on it right?
if so consider this as a partial review, since changes still have to be submitted yet

all of the following must have unit tests covering changes

• selectors
• reducers
• actions
• epics

please checkout also inline comments

also if you can go through the various conversation and add a comment to say which can be resolved or not.

Thanks

[MV88]

is this done?

[Gaetanbrl]

@MV88 thank you for this review and your precious time (which we all miss).

I resumed the review recently and i think you are still working on it right?

Yes, but last comment (here) waiting for some feedback about this comment and this comment.
Especially on my counter proposal (see comment).

So, I didn't move forward, having no additional interaction.

I've been away since your last comment, I'll get back now to work on this contribution to change technicals points but I always need a feedback about functional elements.

[Gaetanbrl]

@MV88 you answer "Is this done ?" about some remaining returns :

• here
• here

It would be really nice if you could give me some feedback on this

• #10514 - FeatureEditor filter by geometric area #10515 (comment)
• especially about "How to use filters correctly ?", because I understand the documentation and how it works, but how can I use it properly in mapstore code ?

Thank you very much for these clarifications (@offtherailz).

[Gaetanbrl]

Here is a summary of the covered items.

Changes Following Reviews

• Fixed the maximum call stack error.
• Applied restricted area logic only in EDIT mode.
• Restricted area is never applied for ADMIN users.
• Restricted area is applied only for USER and ANONYMOUS profiles.
• Added option to enable synchronization between the attribute table and the map (see this comment).
• Various technical feedback items addressed (@MV88).

Outstanding Points

• Unit tests have not been implemented yet.
• There is an issue when synchronization is enabled and then the user switches to edit mode — the CQL syntax becomes invalid

This last error seems related to srid and CQL syntax. Refer to the google group dev ticket for more details.

[tdipisa]

@Gaetanbrl I'm sorry, thank you for this but this PR is quite old now. Do you have plans to re-handle this according to our review above and pending outstanding stuff? Otherwise, I would like to close the PR.

[Gaetanbrl]

Same as #10524.

I can look into updating the PR, but I’m not certain it will still be sufficient...