OGC API - Processes: BoundingBox, Complex and reference Input/Output + tests

[idanmiara]

Overview

This fix add support for BoundingBox, Complex inputs/outputs and extend the relevant docs + tests.

Related Issue / Discussion

v4.5.0 release #613
main implementation #588
docs #612

Contribution Agreement

(as per https://github.com/geopython/pywps/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.rst#contributions-and-licensing)

• I'd like to contribute [feature X|bugfix Y|docs|something else] to PyWPS. I confirm that my contributions to PyWPS will be compatible with the PyWPS license guidelines at the time of contribution.
• I have already previously agreed to the PyWPS Contributions and Licensing Guidelines

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 0.0% when pulling 64157f2 on talos-gis:bbox into 8624d4d on geopython:main.

[idanmiara]

@cehbrecht I tried to support GeoJSON input also inline inside the request and also via a reference.
https://github.com/geopython/pywps/pull/614/files#diff-3dfc734e5dee6eba305a9939b9f1dd809679ae210baa3169b2a22814de8b061fR541
https://github.com/geopython/pywps/pull/614/files#diff-3dfc734e5dee6eba305a9939b9f1dd809679ae210baa3169b2a22814de8b061fR590

I stumbled upon the problem that if I used a reference then the data inside the ComplexInput is represented as a string (which we need to apply json.loads(s) to get the dict), whereas if I insert the data inline then the data insde the ComplexInput is a dict.

Trying to preserve maximum backwards compatibility, i.e not to break usage like:
https://github.com/geopython/pywps/blob/main/tests/test_complexdata_io.py#L117

I eventually inserted the json.loads logic inside the data_as_json function:

c054817#diff-1504dae61cda8378b070b94031958e8f3a2c954f16959a33876f9411ec249409R323
8c188a4#diff-3dfc734e5dee6eba305a9939b9f1dd809679ae210baa3169b2a22814de8b061fR119

Do you have a more elegant way for doing so?

I think otherwise this PR is ready, and I'd be happy if it can make it into v4.5.

[idanmiara]

Please review
@jachym @tomkralidis @huard @cehbrecht
I'm not sure what's up with the @coveralls as I did add relevant tests (and docs :)

[cehbrecht]

@idanmiara Looks good to me :) We can look at improvements later on. I have another PR in the pipeline before making 4.5 release.

[idanmiara]

Thanks @cehbrecht!