Strongly type geomEach function to GeoJSONObject

[baparham]

No description provided.

[tobrun]

Closes #29

[baparham]

tests passed locally and in ci, so I'll see if I can at least refactor this to be more maintainable/readable

[baparham]

Question for discussion: How critical should we consider the comment about speed an efficiency in the geomEach turf.js implementation? I'm not sure if turf.js has any benchmarks out there for measuring performance that we could run against our dart implementation to ensure we maintain performance.

The only thing I think I'd change is to basically have a few more if branches deeper in my refactored implementation, rather than passing around several unnecessary arguments. I'll push a new commit that does this for thoughts and review.

[lukas-h]

https://github.com/Turfjs/turf/blob/d72985ce1a577b42340fed5fc70efe8e4bc8b062/packages/turf-meta/index.js#L523 this remark?

Maybe we could create a similar benchmark suite, similar to: https://github.com/Turfjs/turf/blob/master/packages/turf-meta/bench.js

I found this package for example:
https://pub.dev/packages/benchmark

[baparham]

I rebased this on top of #25 and squashed the commits down to one

[baparham]

Closes #29

@tobrun Did you mean another issue here? I don't see an issue that this closes, but it relates to #27 at least

[baparham]

@lukas-h @tobrun does this refactor work for you guys? Anything you'd like to do differently?

[lukas-h]

In PR #33, I used the is operator instead of checking the .type attribute in a switch case, which could save us some lines of code. Don't know if type checking is more efficient than this.

like this:

if(currentGeometry is GeometryType) {
// ...
} else if(currentGeometry is GeometryCollection) {
// ...
} else {
    throw Exception('Unknown Geometry Type');
}

[lukas-h]

tried to merge this function with _forEachGeomInGeometryObject in my PR #33, please give me a feedback.

[lukas-h]

@lukas-h @tobrun does this refactor work for you guys? Anything you'd like to do differently?

Looks much cleaner now! 😄 I tried to make it even a little smaller here: #33

[baparham]

@lukas-h @tobrun does this refactor work for you guys? Anything you'd like to do differently?

Looks much cleaner now! 😄 I tried to make it even a little smaller here: #33

thanks! approved and merged in here