Implement Extension: Render (#1464)

[bmcandr]

Related Issue(s):

• Implement Extension: Render #1464

Description:
Implements the Render extension.

@gadomski

PR Checklist:

• Pre-commit hooks and tests pass (run scripts/test)
• Documentation has been updated to reflect changes, if applicable
• This PR maintains or improves overall codebase code coverage.
• Changes are added to the CHANGELOG. See the docs for information about adding to the changelog.

[bmcandr]

I need to add docs, tests, update changelog, etc. but figured I'd get the PR open since there may be other changes I need to make. I'll be able to do this next week.

As I mentioned on Gitter, I think the published schema for v1.0.0 is not correct because Items (including the examples in the extension spec repo) fail to validate.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.43%. Comparing base (1cf7f3f) to head (d5e4cd4).
Report is 34 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1465      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.23%   91.43%   +0.20%     
==========================================
  Files          53       54       +1     
  Lines        7335     7498     +163     
  Branches      894      906      +12     
==========================================
+ Hits         6692     6856     +164     
  Misses        457      457              
+ Partials      186      185       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[bmcandr]

I think I figured out why example Items on main in the spec repo and Items produced by my implementation fail validation. The v1.0.0 spec defines renders as a required field on Items, but an unreleased update moves renders field into the Item properties to align with the STAC spec convention for additional metadata. My implementation of the extension follows this convention reflected in the unreleased spec and AFAICT all Item-extending extensions implemented in pystac at this time follow this convention too. IMO it makes sense to wait for the updated spec to be released before considering this extension for acceptance.

Edit: the spec author is considering reverting this change to make renders a top-level field on Items. Does this jive with how extensions are currently handled in pystac? Are there any Item-extending extension implementations that place additional metadata at the top-level?

Edit 2: the spec author has agreed to stick with convention 🎉

[gadomski]

Edit 2: the spec author has agreed to stick with convention 🎉

Awesome, thanks for the update. Yeah, everything should be on properties so glad you sorted that out.

[gadomski]

@bmcandr is this ready for another round of review? Thanks for the sweat-equity on this!

[bmcandr]

Yep!

[gadomski]

Excellent stuff...thanks!