Skip to content

Conversation

martinRenou
Copy link
Member

@martinRenou martinRenou commented Jul 16, 2025

Description

Fixing a couple of issues here:

  • the output layer name wouldn't always make sense
  • the processing config + schema merge script was relying on the order that os.listdir outputs for schema files, which locally for me was messing out everything. We probably have been lucky with the released version. But I don't want to push luck further and fixing the issue here.

📚 Documentation preview: https://jupytergis--819.org.readthedocs.build/en/819/
💡 JupyterLite preview: https://jupytergis--819.org.readthedocs.build/en/819/lite

@martinRenou martinRenou added the bug Something isn't working label Jul 16, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

Binder 👈 Launch a Binder on branch martinRenou/jupytergis/fix_processing

@martinRenou
Copy link
Member Author

martinRenou commented Jul 16, 2025

I'll make a quick patch release with this once CI is green

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jul 16, 2025

Integration tests report: appsharing.space

@martinRenou martinRenou merged commit 86d8b46 into geojupyter:main Jul 16, 2025
14 checks passed
@martinRenou martinRenou deleted the fix_processing branch July 16, 2025 17:36
@mfisher87
Copy link
Member

I think os.listdir's sort order depends on the operating system. Looks like we still have a listdir call that isn't being re-sorted. Is that important? Or was the issue that with multiple calls to listdir, we relied on their sort order being the same?

@martinRenou
Copy link
Member Author

Or was the issue that with multiple calls to listdir, we relied on their sort order being the same

Yes that was the issue 👍🏽

@mfisher87
Copy link
Member

Interesting that it's not; I expected sort order to be arbitrary but stable! Nice catch :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants