Yes, so I changed it already, and I am using the seriesUID as name for the images. Additionally, I had to add the layer property: Because by introducing the image name property, somehow the layer is also set (to a high number, probably). When I create a new SEG without setting the layer of the image to 0, the SEG is only put on top, when opening the data manager.

is this still an issue?

@s349i This should be also covered by your work, shouldn't it? If yes, please claim or merge with your working tasks.

What is here still open?

@gaoh could you join the discussion?
Also may be the worklist feature T29159 would be an additional way to circumvent it.?!?

In T28991#237063, @kalali wrote:

This was not meant as a criticism but just to bring this behavior to the attention of the user. Because it is important to realize what's happening, to understand that a new mask was created and the old one was overwritten.

Thank you for the clarification. 🙏

Deleted branch from rMITK MITK: feature/T28866-timepointaware-preview-changes.

Hi there! 🙂

Hi there! 🙂

Hi there! 🙂

Hi there! 🙂

@kislinsk Do we want to close this task, because of 2ef49f51d547?

Just out of curiosity I removed all default parameters for the following functions:

• mitkLabelSetImage::MergeLabel
• mitk::LabelSetImage::MergeLabels
• mitk::LabelSetImage::UpdateCenterOfMass
• mitk::LabelSetImage::RemoveLabels
• mitk::LabelSetImage::EraseLabel
• mitk::LabelSetImage::EraseLabels
• mitk::LabelSetImage::GetActiveLabel
• const mitk::LabelSetImage::GetActiveLabel
• mitk::LabelSetImage::GetLabel
• mitk::LabelSetImage::GetLabelSet
• const mitk::LabelSetImage::GetLabelSet
• mitk::LabelSetImage::GetNumberOfLabels
• mitk::LabelSetImage::CreateLabelMask

In T28991#236421, @floca wrote:

[...] But the task text also criticises things, where I am not sure if it is realy a bug but just intended behavior.
e.g.

• change the timestep
  • see how the threshold segmentation mask does not fit the underlying image anymore that well

As a static seg is used. I would expect this behavior. Even for a dynamic seg, if not "process all time steps" are activated.

• After the meeting with @floca, Ahmad, Silvia and Jan, they have said that Ralf's suggested union mode would definitely be more appreciated. The task T29146 describes the union mode in a bit more detail. T
• They also mentioned that by default they would prefer not to have any locks on the labels.
• Additionally, they would also like the picking tool to work across layers, but @floca suggested we implement this feature subsequently after the new mitk::MultiImage data-structure is finished.

I added a review for changes that describe the current behavior for developers. Actually the description already matched the behavior but I made some slight changes anyway.

I updated the checklists to make the description more clear, when it comes to clicking on the background. It is hard to explain how the tool behaves, although for me it is clear what happens.

We already discussed this some weeks ago. We talked about a second outline, dashed lines etc.
I updated the corresponding differential and added another solution, which automatically reduces the opacity of non-active labels. We can discuss if this is a work-around until we have a new / modified data structure.
The point I wanted to make is: From the feedback of the tester we should definitely provide an option to hide the outline contour at all (especially for active labels), so I tried the opacity-approach.

Have we discussed this yesterday in the meeting?

@kislinsk Do we want to close this task, because of 2ef49f51d547?