New Issue Type: Point vs Polygon

[Ben-Hodgkiss]

Overview

We should create a new issue type that can be used by both the async-request-backend and the pipeline to flag when we expect a geometry to be a polygon, but are provided a point, and vice versa. This will be of most use in both the Check and Manage tools to flag to end-users that data is potentially incorrect, but should also raise issues in the pipeline so that these can be reported back to providers.

Acceptance Criteria

• If an LPA checks a conservation-area endpoint that has a POINT geometries, this is notified on the Check tool.
• If we check a conservation-area endpoint that has a POINT geometries, this is notified on the Manage tool.
• If a conservation-area entity that has a POINT geometry, an issue is raised in the pipeline.
• If an LPA checks a brownfield-land endpoint that has a MULTIPOLYGON geometries, this is notified on the Check tool.
• If we check a brownfield-land endpoint that has a MULTIPOLYGON geometries, this is notified on the Manage tool.
• If a brownfield-land entity that has a MULTIPOLYGON geometry, an issue is raised in the pipeline.
• Tree dataset should accept both POINT or MULTIPOLYGON

[salabi]

After reviewing the code base for polygon and point - noticed this checks has been carried out already and assigned an issue-type. Further more, I queried the issue table and can see this issues are being logged.

[Swati-Dash]

@salabi this issue is for geometries which are neither point or polygon (ex https://datasette.planning.data.gov.uk/performance/endpoint_dataset_issue_type_summary?_sort=rowid&issue_type__exact=Unexpected+geom+type+within+GeometryCollection) ?

[Ben-Hodgkiss]

Did some testing on this...

• I tried submitting a CA with points in the geometry column - that did show issues: https://provide.planning.data.gov.uk/check/results/KunzfbaUJ6dAkuR7eAZg3J/1#table-tab
• I tried submitting CA with points in the point column - that failed as the geometry column was missing and is a mandatory field (but didn't flag about points being provided): https://provide.planning.data.gov.uk/check/results/3YUhstGoUtMNSkfirXV7hj/1#table-tab
• I tried submitting a CA with blank geometry and points in the point column - that passed: https://provide.planning.data.gov.uk/check/results/EDXBifVy3HmjMn6wsF7Pxc/1

So have concluded that the pipeline will flag then the wrong shape is in the wrong column, and mandatory fields will mean we can ensure that columns are present (even if blank).

What we can't do is check if someone has only provided one and left the other blank - although missing value errors will be raised.

Moving to consideration to think about next steps - we could add an expected-geometry-type to the spec that would help define this. But it seems like the current direction of the spec is to allow points if polygons aren't available.