[GH-2230] Implement GeoSeries.is_ccw and GeoSeries.minimum_clearance

[piyushka-ally]

[GH-2230] Implement GeoSeries.is_ccw and GeoSeries.minimum_clearance

Did you read the Contributor Guide?

• Yes, I have read the Contributor Rules and Contributor Development Guide

Is this PR related to a ticket?

• Yes, and the PR name follows the format [GH-XXX] my subject. Part of [EPIC] Implement More Geopandas Functions #2230

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Implements two missing GeoSeries methods from the GH-2230 EPIC to expand Sedona's geopandas-compatible API:

GeoSeries.is_ccw (property)

• Returns True for Polygon/MultiPolygon geometries whose exterior ring is counter-clockwise oriented, False for all other geometry types.
• Backed by ST_IsPolygonCCW.
• Note: unlike geopandas (which works on LinearRing), this implementation operates on polygon geometry types. The behavioral difference is documented in the docstring.

GeoSeries.minimum_clearance() (method)

• Returns the minimum clearance distance of each geometry as a float64 Series — the smallest distance by which any vertex could be moved to produce an invalid geometry.
• Backed by ST_MinimumClearance.
• Handles the JTS/GEOS representation difference: JTS returns Double.MAX_VALUE for degenerate geometries (e.g. Point, empty); this is converted to float('inf') to match geopandas/shapely behaviour.

Both methods are implemented in geoseries.py (Spark SQL logic) and base.py (GeoDataFrame delegation + docstring with examples).

How was this patch tested?

• tests/geopandas/test_geoseries.py — hardcoded expected-value tests for both functions, including GeoDataFrame delegation:
  • test_is_ccw: CW polygon → False, CCW polygon → True, Point → False
  • test_minimum_clearance: unit square → 1.0, half-unit square → 0.5
• tests/geopandas/test_match_geopandas_series.py — comparison against geopandas:
  • test_is_ccw: compares empty polygon (the only case where Sedona and geopandas semantics agree)
  • test_minimum_clearance: iterates all geometry fixture types (self.geoms) and compares against geopandas results

All 4 tests pass locally.

Did this PR include necessary documentation updates?

• No, this PR does not affect any public API documentation — it implements existing stub methods that were already part of the planned API surface (tracked in [EPIC] Implement More Geopandas Functions #2230). Docstrings with examples are included inline.

[jbampton]

Seem pre-commit is failing and it reformatted python/sedona/spark/geopandas/geoseries.py

We are not using Python 3.14

https://github.com/apache/sedona/actions/runs/23374281851/job/68015517846?pr=2772

[petern48]

Thank you for working on this! Overall, the changes look good 👏 . Except that I would prefer skipping the implementation of is_ccw() for now (see my comments)

[petern48]

We actually had a previous contribution attempt for is_ccw(), and encountered this problem, and we agreed not to implement it for now (#2386 (comment)), given it's not easy to replicate the full desired behavior. We're not just missing proper behavior for LinearRings (which are rare), but we would have the incorrect behavior for LineStrings, which are very common. As you can see in the code snippet below, LineString can evaluate to True here too, but our existing ST_IsPolygonCCW() isn't capable of determining that at the moment.

import shapely
from shapely import LineString
from geopandas import GeoSeries

ls = LineString([[0, 0], [1, 0], [1, 1], [2, 2]])
gs = GeoSeries(ls)
print(gs.is_ccw)

In order to implement proper support for is_ccw(), I think we would need to investigate doing some more changes in the actual Java code and potentially look into the upstream JTS library. Given that complexity, I would rather skip implementing it entirely for now (or at least in a separate PR if you really want to investigate it, though it would be harder). Could we remove it for now?

[piyushka-ally]

Yes please.

No worries, I will try to pick some more functions I can implement. Thanks for reviewing my PR.

[piyushka-ally]

Please approve. Thanks.

[petern48]

Please approve. Thanks.

You haven't addressed the review feedback that I left (I don't see any new commits pushed). Do you plan to fulfill my request? I don't think this PR is ready to merge without it.

[jiayuasu]

Note that all Python CIs are currently failing due to #2774

We cannot merge this PR without all green python CIs. Meanwhile, please fix what Peter suggested.

[piyushka-ally]

Hey sorry, I thought this was my other PR. I am working on this one, will push shortly.

[piyushka-ally]

Pre-commit hooks pass locally, and I have removed the is_ccw() implementation. Thanks.