Point In Face

[aaronzedwick]

Closes #905

Overview

Expected Usage

from uxarray.grid.geometry import point_in_polygon

# Defined polygon
polygon = [ [-10,  10, -10, 10], [10, 10, -10, -10]]

# Point to check
point = [10, 10]

point_in_polygon(polygon, point, inclusive=True)

PR Checklist

General

• An issue is linked created and linked
• Add appropriate labels
• Filled out Overview and Expected Usage (if applicable) sections

Testing

• Adequate tests are created if there is new functionality
• Tests cover all possible logical paths in your function
• Tests are not too basic (such as simply calling a function and nothing else)

Documentation

• Docstrings have been added to all new functions
• Docstrings have updated with any function changes
• Internal functions have a preceding underscore (_) and have been added to docs/internal_api/index.rst
• User functions have been added to docs/user_api/index.rst

[aaronzedwick]

@ philipc2 do you think this should be an internal function or exposed to the user?

[philipc2]

Please include an ASV benchmark. I'd suggest doing a parameterized benchmark for the 120 and 480 km MPAS grids.

[philipc2]

Please use the optimized functions from #1072 and try to write the function entirely in Numba. This may require us to pass in both the cartesian and spherical versions of point & polygon. Let me know if you have any questions!

[aaronzedwick]

@hongyuchen1030 Could you give the point in the polygon function a review? The first test case test_point_inside is the main test I have been using, which is failing. Philip and I tried debugging it yesterday, but couldn't find any issue with my code. We wanted to see if you saw any obvious misuse of the intersection code.

Looking into it right now
My error messages are

        # Assert that the point is not in the polygon
        self.assertFalse(
>           point_in_polygon(polygon_xyz, polygon_lonlat, point_xyz, point_lonlat, ref_point_xyz, ref_point_lonlat))
E       TypeError: point_in_polygon() takes from 4 to 5 positional arguments but 6 were given

test_geometry.py:1623: TypeError

And only the first one, test_geometry.py::TestPointInPolygon::test_point_inside is passing, all others fail

The other test cases are not updated to handle the new conditions of passing in both lon and lat. The passing test case is only passing because I commented out the assertion statement. Sorry for the confusion.

By any chance you know which specific face is not passing?

Half the faces don't pass, and the other half do. The first 3 at least fail, if I remember correctly. Interestingly, with your changes on a gca_gca intersection to make it cartesian only, it works better if the reference point is changed to be next to the pole but not the pole itself. However, there hasn't been any improvement when doing the same thing with the current implementation of the intersection code. So something seems to have changed from the changes you are making in that PR.

[philipc2]

@hongyuchen1030

uxarray/test/test_intersections.py

Lines 95 to 114 in f783f61

	def test_GCA_GCA_pole(self):
	face_lonlat = np.deg2rad(np.array([-175, 26.5]))
	# this fails when the pole is set to exactly -90.0
	ref_point_lonlat = np.deg2rad(np.array([0.0, -89.9]))
	face_xyz = np.array(_lonlat_rad_to_xyz(*face_lonlat))
	ref_point_xyz = np.array(_lonlat_rad_to_xyz(*ref_point_lonlat))
	edge_a_lonlat = np.deg2rad(np.array((-175, -24.5)))
	edge_b_lonlat = np.deg2rad(np.array((-173, 25.7)))
	edge_a_xyz = np.array(_lonlat_rad_to_xyz(*edge_a_lonlat))
	edge_b_xyz = np.array(_lonlat_rad_to_xyz(*edge_b_lonlat))
	gca_a_xyz = np.array([face_xyz, ref_point_xyz])
	gca_b_xyz = np.array([edge_a_xyz, edge_b_xyz])
	# The edge should intersect
	self.assertTrue(len(gca_gca_intersection(gca_a_xyz, gca_b_xyz)))

I've added the test case here in #1112

The correct intersection is computed up to -89.9999999999999, but after that it returns no intersection, such as when the point is set to exactly -90.0

[aaronzedwick]

@hongyuchen1030

uxarray/test/test_intersections.py

Lines 95 to 114 in f783f61

	def test_GCA_GCA_pole(self):
	face_lonlat = np.deg2rad(np.array([-175, 26.5]))
	# this fails when the pole is set to exactly -90.0
	ref_point_lonlat = np.deg2rad(np.array([0.0, -89.9]))
	face_xyz = np.array(_lonlat_rad_to_xyz(*face_lonlat))
	ref_point_xyz = np.array(_lonlat_rad_to_xyz(*ref_point_lonlat))
	edge_a_lonlat = np.deg2rad(np.array((-175, -24.5)))
	edge_b_lonlat = np.deg2rad(np.array((-173, 25.7)))
	edge_a_xyz = np.array(_lonlat_rad_to_xyz(*edge_a_lonlat))
	edge_b_xyz = np.array(_lonlat_rad_to_xyz(*edge_b_lonlat))
	gca_a_xyz = np.array([face_xyz, ref_point_xyz])
	gca_b_xyz = np.array([edge_a_xyz, edge_b_xyz])
	# The edge should intersect
	self.assertTrue(len(gca_gca_intersection(gca_a_xyz, gca_b_xyz)))

I've added the test case here in #1112

The correct intersection is computed up to -89.9999999999999, but after that it returns no intersection, such as when the point is set to exactly -90.0

Thanks for this Philip.

[aaronzedwick]

@hongyuchen1030 using your branch and the code from this branch, it works properly when the reference point is not on the pole, so whatever the issue seems to be fixed in that PR. Thanks for taking the time to look at this for me though!

[hongyuchen1030]

@hongyuchen1030 using your branch and the code from this branch, it works properly when the reference point is not on the pole, so whatever the issue seems to be fixed in that PR. Thanks for taking the time to look at this for me though!

I think me and @philipc2 had resolved this through the recently merged branch #1112 , Thanks again for @philipc2's help. With the updated algorithm, it should work for the the pole point as well now.

[aaronzedwick]

@philipc2 do you know why this is failing? It doesn't have any issues locally when I run the tests, but for some reason, it fails on the CI, saying that it can't resize the array. Could you checkout the branch and try running the test cases?

Also, another odd problem is that half of the time the tests do fail locally, saying no faces were found in the subset, but the other half of the time faces are found. I am pretty confused by that as well. So any insight into that would be appreciated if you have any ideas.

[hongyuchen1030]

@philipc2 do you know why this is failing? It doesn't have any issues locally when I run the tests, but for some reason, it fails on the CI, saying that it can't resize the array. Could you checkout the branch and try running the test cases?

Also, another odd problem is that half of the time the tests do fail locally, saying no faces were found in the subset, but the other half of the time faces are found. I am pretty confused by that as well. So any insight into that would be appreciated if you have any ideas.

Can you point us to the specific testcase that's been failing?

Also, another odd problem is that half of the time the tests do fail locally, saying no faces were found in the subset, but the other half of the time faces are found

Are you using the same setting? Did you clear the cache everytime you run it?

[aaronzedwick]

@philipc2 do you know why this is failing? It doesn't have any issues locally when I run the tests, but for some reason, it fails on the CI, saying that it can't resize the array. Could you checkout the branch and try running the test cases?
Also, another odd problem is that half of the time the tests do fail locally, saying no faces were found in the subset, but the other half of the time faces are found. I am pretty confused by that as well. So any insight into that would be appreciated if you have any ideas.

Can you point us to the specific testcase that's been failing?

Also, another odd problem is that half of the time the tests do fail locally, saying no faces were found in the subset, but the other half of the time faces are found

Are you using the same setting? Did you clear the cache everytime you run it?

The test cases that are failing are just the ones on the CI, which are listed under it if you click there, they are the two test cases I added for the point containing polygon grid function.

Everything should be the same across environments, that I know of. That’s why I wanted to see if it passed or failed on someone else’s machine, to hopefully point me in some direction of what the error could be.

[philipc2]

@philipc2 do you know why this is failing? It doesn't have any issues locally when I run the tests, but for some reason, it fails on the CI, saying that it can't resize the array. Could you checkout the branch and try running the test cases?
Also, another odd problem is that half of the time the tests do fail locally, saying no faces were found in the subset, but the other half of the time faces are found. I am pretty confused by that as well. So any insight into that would be appreciated if you have any ideas.

Can you point us to the specific testcase that's been failing?

Also, another odd problem is that half of the time the tests do fail locally, saying no faces were found in the subset, but the other half of the time faces are found

Are you using the same setting? Did you clear the cache everytime you run it?

The test cases that are failing are just the ones on the CI, which are listed under it if you click there, they are the two test cases I added for the point containing polygon grid function.

Everything should be the same across environments, that I know of. That’s why I wanted to see if it passed or failed on someone else’s machine, to hopefully point me in some direction of what the error could be.

Can you share your environment information? (Python Version & Installed packages)

[philipc2]

The tests are failing on my machine as well.

[hongyuchen1030]

The test cases that are failing are just the ones on the CI, which are listed under it if you click there, they are the two test cases I added for the point containing polygon grid function.

The test cases that are failing are just the ones on the CI, which are listed under it if you click there, they are the two test cases I added for the point containing polygon grid function.

I didn't see any no faces found on the CI. My point is: does your local fails at the same point as your CI?

[philipc2]

This appears to be the issue here.

If you pass in subset.n_max_face_nodes it works correctly (both values are equivalent).

When the connectivity construction for self.face_edge_connectivity, it leads to issues. I am looking deeper into it.

[aaronzedwick]

Oh, okay. So something with constructing the face_edge causes issues. Thanks for the fix for now, let me know if you figure out the issue. From what I saw, it seems to have something to do with the inverse indices, it uses the wrong ones, the ones gotten from the subset, instead of the ones stored inside grid._ds["edge_node_connectivity"].attrs. Maybe it is getting overwritten somehow?

[philipc2]

The inverse indices in the context of edge_node_connectivity are different than the inverse_indices from the subset. I don't believe that they are overwritten, but something is definitely off.

[aaronzedwick]

The test cases that are failing are just the ones on the CI, which are listed under it if you click there, they are the two test cases I added for the point containing polygon grid function.

The test cases that are failing are just the ones on the CI, which are listed under it if you click there, they are the two test cases I added for the point containing polygon grid function.

I didn't see any no faces found on the CI. My point is: does your local fails at the same point as your CI?

Ah, I see what you mean, no, my local is failing at a different point. But on the same test cases. I will try and reset my environment to make sure it's up to date.