Daniel Cumberbatch

@mhugo, @vmora this is duplicated by issue #200 which I created. I adapted your example in to a unit test here (corrected a couple of typos and the non-closed Polygon):...

The specified snippet application runs fine: ``` $ cat main.cpp #include #include #include int main() { SFCGAL::Polygon poly; poly.exteriorRing().addPoint(SFCGAL::Point(2, 1)); poly.exteriorRing().addPoint(SFCGAL::Point(1, 0)); poly.exteriorRing().addPoint(SFCGAL::Point(0, 1)); poly.exteriorRing().addPoint(SFCGAL::Point(1.01, 2)); poly.exteriorRing().addPoint(SFCGAL::Point(2, 1)); std::cout

@mhugo @lbartoletti this is of particular interest as the algorithm is particularly expensive and frequently used. Consequently, I am currently looking into this issue. If there has been any more...

It effectively checks that for two geometries A and B, covers(A,b) checks if the intersection of A and B is "equal" to B. The equality check is done using comparisons...

Validation caching can make great improvements to the performance of this algorithm. In summary, once a geometry has been validated, the result need not be recalculated if it has not...

@strk so this is the ticket where I meant to place that comment...can we accomplish the level of precision testing you require for the relevant module with WKT inputs in...

Sure, I'll try that @strk. @lbartoletti can I please be assigned to this whilst I am investigating what @strk has proposed?

Thanks @lbartoletti this is now in progress.

@strk I used the HEXWKB input of the simplified example that you posted in https://github.com/Oslandia/SFCGAL/issues/89 to generate high precision WKT: `POLYGON((1687891.0397187702 5401915.747313647,1684030.8100260005 5402682.520688001,1684000.000000001 5402672.313998163,1681298.834868019 5401963.620584738,1681281.1342950005 5403807.881624001,1683915.838219001 5402676.741864,1684000.000000001 5402711.41802501,1684020.6181620006 5402719.9130770005,1687892.1109056068 5404508.535615864,1687891.0397187702...

@strk would test inputs written using WKT in fractional form suffice?