Page MenuHomePhabricator

Extend "Checkliste Segmentierung – Manuelle Segmentierung / 2D Segmentierung"
Open, HighPublic


In T27506, @floca wrote:

All tools have to check for the following usage scenario:

  • segmentation on a 3D image
  • 3D segmentation (static) on a 4D (dynamic) image
  • 4D segmentation on a 4D image
  • All this with an image which time geometry does not start at 0 ms (e.g. MITK-Data/3D+t-ITKIO-TestData/LinearModel_4D_arbitrary_time_geometry.nrrd)

What the segmentation should look like/how it is generated must be specified per tool. But for all tools the following post conditions should apply:

  • Tools can be activated, used /confirmed.
  • The timestep of the reference image stays the same and is not changed by starting the segmentation.
  • Using the tool does not change the geometry of the segmentation (so 3D stays 3D and 4D segs are still 4D segs after the tool usage).

Extend the segementation check lists accordingly.

Event Timeline

kalali triaged this task as Normal priority.Sep 11 2020, 10:10 AM
kalali created this task.

I updated the document and added content to explicitly test

  • segmentation on a 3D image
  • 3D segmentation (static) on a 4D image
  • 4D segmentation (dynamic) on a 4D image

I tried to shorten the instructions to not make the document too long. I think the new content makes {T26987} even more important. With a new format we could add subsections for different data types.
I copied the modified document to E130-Daten\Release\Checklisten\MITK Workbench Release and renamed it to Checkliste Segmentierung – 2D Segmentierung

kalali renamed this task from Extend "Checkliste Segmentierung – Manuelle Segmentierung" to Extend "Checkliste Segmentierung – Manuelle Segmentierung / 2D Segmentierung".Sep 12 2020, 1:04 PM
kalali raised the priority of this task from Normal to High.Sep 15 2020, 8:11 PM
kalali added a subscriber: gaoh.

@thomass, @gaoh Can someone please proofread?

just started to have a look.

My first -to be discussed- questions would be:
If we rework the checklists anyways, could we also switch languages or would that be a milestone for next time?

We discussed the open todos concerning Checklists (storage, format, language) and decided that this topic should be prioritized higher but not for the milestone of the new release / current documentation refactoring.
I think this would be a good option for the phase after the release but if you have a strong point to do it now, please state here.

I think the things you changed are all reasonable, the things I would add (I can not do it atm because I don't have access to the document)

The tester should check for static and dynamic

  1. whether the segmentation result has the right dimensions
  2. in case of dynamic segmentation, he/she should check whether the algorithm is applied on only the selected or on all timesteps

I looked again at the tests we have inside the checklist and I think it is still very long and many steps are redundant - because only the clicked tool-button changes and the underlying segmentation algorithm produces different results.
I think it is clearer and even better for testing a specific tool / algorithm, if we somehow separate the tests for different tools.

If necessary, I might need a helping hand because static/dynamic*single/double*2DTools/3DTools = many test cases

So to reduce the size and complexity of the checklist I think we should try to

  1. remove tests that can be automated
  2. group / separate tests according to a reasonable similarity / dissimilarity
  3. split the document into the clustered algorithms / continue with {T26987} for a better checklist format

Edit: We had a discussion about refactoring the segmentation tools. This will be explained in T27507#211912.