Geofield/Openlayers widget refactor

I actually need this for a project. There is already an openlayers input widget. What's the status of this right now ?
I might be able to help.

ok so i got it working but it's pretty far from the wish-list.

I copy/pasted the code from openlayer draw widget and made it work to feed wkt to geofield. It's more or less what the openlayer draw feature gives: point, line, polygon, 'freehand line' and edit ability for your shapes.

As geoPHP fails on empty collection geometry if you don't draw anything on you map, the form submit will fail and nothing'll get saved. I'm looking at how to solve that js style. (while testing, draw at least 1 thing on every map input displayed).

Of course it requires openlayers to work, and fill in the wkt hidden field with geometrycollection() and whatever you draw inside. No way geofield_map will display anything from this kind of field, you need openlayers.

I really need to look at what to remove and where I think this could be simpler. It'd be nice to figure out who should own the draw feature, the openlayers project or geofield. If There is nothing new soon I'll be posting about it in the openlayer module queue.

Don't have time to clean up my patch, will send it tomorrow.

Grrr crappy connection made me lose my text…

So, it works, multi-values too, based on openlayers functionnality, default toolbar and some unused code in the behavior class for future ui settings options.

Could be improved a lot, limit number of features. override default multi-value presentation to transform them into layers. do some PHP validation to enforce this on top of JS.

sorry, update of the previous patch, i wasn't clearing the field on feature deletion.

Don't know if you want this comment in this issue, but I have a request/question.

With the new input widget, points are added in addition to existing points, in comparison to earlier when it replaced the point you had set. This can be confusing for some, as you also can add multiple values for the field (meaning several maps) instead of several points on one map.

Of course you can move the point that has been set, but as far as I can see, you can not delete a point that has been set. Is this correct? I'm guessing that most users would find it confusing and strange that they have to move a point instead of just setting a new one when editing a node with a map point already set.

edit: Sorry, Just found out by looking at the code. For reference, if someone else have this question: 'Delete' button removes the point. Time to test this on my users (they are very often editing map points)

@eiriksm: i'd be interested to know what they have to say :)

I am using the latest dev version of this module but İ dont see the new display style. Instead I see like the old openlayers style. Is the patch commited yet?

wrong issue.

the styles come from the ol module. you have to update the image and CSS path of your map configuration to see the change.

Sorry, I couldn't express myself enough. I am seeing the new style of Openlayers (coming from the OL css). But instead I should see a dropdown similar to comment #1, right?

I am attaching what I currently see...

Is there a different location of dropdown css or something?

haha oh sorry. You can see in the middle I hijacked the issue and fixed a couple of issues with the patch for openlayers. The initial plan was to have an input widget based on google maps which wouldn't require the openlayers module.

So no, the new style as described in the first couple of posts is not available.

Brandonian has been working on it on github, I haven't had much time to give it a shot myself. Wait and see :)

Oh now I am your accomplice right? :) I think Brandonian's proposed widget is more user-friendly. I will be waiting for it.

I still can't find how to select a given OL map preset for a given field instance widget.
Seems like it's possible with the Openlayers WKT field (see /node/904646 section 3) but not with Geofield, even since this patch was pushed. Am I wrong ?

[edit] finally got my OL map as available as a widget (geofield behavior checked), but still stuck on the second part of the question.

The underlying problem for me is that I already have an OL map which draws selectable features from GeoJSON.
I want my widget to allow selecting among the provided polygonal features (+ some control over hover/highlightonly). Is such a thing possible in the current shape of the geofield ?

I think that the behaviors, when reusable, should be part of Openlayers (like a OL.Control.SelectFeature in #1440996: no ability to add custom SelectFeature)
But on the Geofield side, Drupal.behaviors.openlayers_behavior_geofield should ease their integration.
In its current shape, I can create custom behaviors in my module but can't reuse the Wkt related functions of Geofield (but if it's possible then any hints about how to do this would be appreciated)

Drupal.behaviors.openlayers_behavior_geofield should clarify the use of context, dataLayer and dataProjection variables.
The most important being that Geofield would not rely on creating its own layers (dataLayer) but allow the use of custom behaviors and layers while still doing its work at registering the Wkt related event on 'featureadded' & co.

does it make sense ?

Refactor stage one has now been committed into the 2.x branch. Please leave your feedback and comments.

Major changes are:

1. All settings are now part of widget settings, not part of behavior settings
2. multiple-values behave as expected now (woohoo!).
3. When drawing over the allowed-number of values, your oldest shape is removed.
4. num-values and allowed-shapes are now validated server-side

Still needs to be done:

1. Review how I implemented delta-handling. I think it could be better but I don't know how.
2. Doxygen
3. Support for removing single vertices
4. More intuitive removing of point features. (right now you need to awkwardly click twice)

Crossposting #1907914: Refactor OpenLayers widget to pull out generic methods these two issues look to me as duplicates. Unassigned phayes, perhaps other would like to step up and work on this. Not sure what needs more work?