Adds support for the inverse of #2337 (A multipolygon completely contained by a polygon)

@rowanwins hi! When is this feature going to be released? Merging this feature would help solve #1915 and help answer this comment.

Hi @MartinP-C. Know it's been a while since you submitted this. We're working to get some old PRs merged. Are you still on board to see this one through with some assistance?

Hi @smallsaucepan , absolutely. What is needed?

Thanks @MartinP-C. Wondering a couple of things:

Given booleanContains and booleanWithin are two sides of the same coin, should we expand the scope of the PR to make sure they're aligned? A quick look at the multipolygon tests in within shows some are being skipped so there might be some gaps there too.

Secondly, if the above is true, I've noticed contains and within share a lot of very similar (though not identical) internal functions e.g. isPointInMultiPoint or isPolyInPoly. Would you mind seeing if this is an opportunity to pull the logic into a common module rather than having duplicated code?

Possibly more than you signed on for 😅 though keen to introduce consistency and reuse where we can.

It is a bit more but I'm up for the challenge :)
So:

• unskip tests for booleanWithin and update
• ensure same feature types for feature1/2 and feature2/1 are able to be checked via booleanContains and booleanWithins (and ensure there are tests covering these)
• share common code where possible

Where should common code go?
I notice in some packages they share from the helpers package and in others it is from a package itself.
so, for example, should isPolyInPoly become it's own package?
or just exist within booleanContains (or Within) and import it from there?

Thanks @MartinP-C. That all sounds great.

Regarding your question about where to put common code, have started discussion #2537. Perhaps jump in there first and we can work through an approach.

@MartinP-C @smallsaucepan Hi! Can I help with anything to upload this feature? It'll be great to have it

Hi! Any update about this feature? It'll be great to have it!

Im blocked on this, what is preventing this from moving forward?

Gets get it!!

Hey y'all. Any word on this getting merged?

As a way of keep track of contains / within support, this PR will be adding support for the blue section below: