Deleted branch from rMITK MITK: bugfix/T29626-UpgradeThirdPartyDependencies.
- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
Advanced Search
Jun 16 2023
Jun 15 2023
This task is done as part of task https://phabricator.mitk.org/T27860.
Didn't find any "critical" style issues. It is a single commit, right? rMITKc8283d2c7c3f: Smaller Bugfixes
You may want to search and replace "[Bb]oarder" with "[Bb]order", though, as I guess you intended to refer to "Rand" instead of "Untermieter". :)
Jun 14 2023
Deleted branch from rMITK MITK: bugfix/T26840-MitkHomepageReorganization-TopLevel-integrationBranch.
The formula for the 23Na-MR data analysis is:
Jun 13 2023
What is the status here?
Jun 12 2023
Deleted branch from rMITK MITK: bugfix/T29627-FixDoxygenWarnings.
Pushed new branch to rMITK MITK: bugfix/T29627-FixDoxygenWarnings.
Deleted branch from rMITK MITK: feature/T28578-Test-MxN-installer.
What's your doxygen version?
Jun 6 2023
Jun 2 2023
Pushed new branch to rMITK MITK: bugfix/T29626-UpgradeThirdPartyDependencies.
May 31 2023
Deleted branch from rMITK MITK: feature/T29625-FindOpenSSLBinaries.
Pushed new branch to rMITK MITK: feature/T29625-FindOpenSSLBinaries.
May 30 2023
Deleted branch from rMITK MITK: bugfix/T29623-mbilog-MitkLog.
May 28 2023
Pushed new branch to rMITK MITK: bugfix/T29623-mbilog-MitkLog.
May 25 2023
During our testing event there were no suggestions for new layouts people would like, so this task will be closed and any layouts that are requested in the future can be added on demand.
May 24 2023
please ask tanja before I say something wrong.
What exactly was the model again? Just an exponential decay?
Ya, you are right. I didn't think it through. A Group cannot have overlapping labels. Hence, when asked to Ignore Label lock, would mean it has to go when Otsu-generated labels are confirmed.
This is more of the stack trace:
MitkCore.dll!mitk::ImageDataItem::GetData() Zeile 131 MitkCore.dll!mitk::Image::Image(const mitk::Image & other) Zeile 83 MitkMultilabel.dll!mitk::LabelSetImage::LabelSetImage(const mitk::LabelSetImage & other) Zeile 75 MitkMultilabel.dll!mitk::LabelSetImage::InternalClone() Zeile 494 MitkMultilabel.dll!mitk::LabelSetImage::Clone() Zeile 33 MitkSegmentationUI.dll!ModifyLabelProcessing<3>(mitk::LabelSetImage * labelSetImage, itk::SmartPointer<mitk::SurfaceInterpolationController> surfaceInterpolator, unsigned int timePoint) Zeile 203 MitkSegmentationUI.dll!QmitkSlicesInterpolator::OnModifyLabelChanged(const itk::Object * caller, const itk::EventObject & __formal) Zeile 1915
No that should not happen. What is the rest of the stack trace? Does it fail to clone a layer image or the LabelSetImage itself?
May 23 2023
I don't understand the propblem. It behaves like it should. If you ignore locks and transfer all otsu labels, all other labels of a group will be wiped (but still the label exist, as tools do not delete label instances but only pixels), because otsu covers all pixels.
May 22 2023
Can reproduce. When debugging, the error is caused while trying to clone a LabelSetImage. While creating a new mitk::Image from a reference, it tries to get:
ImageDataItemPointer volume = other.GetVolumeData(0); this->SetVolume(volume->GetData(), 0);
but volume is nullptr.
I'm not sure if this just needs a nullptr safeguard (and eventually an additional default initialization?) or if this should not be able to happen in the first place.
May 21 2023
Pushed new branch to rMITK MITK: feature/T29606-Add_MatchPoint_MiniApps.
May 19 2023
🙏
Tested on the latest MITK 2023.04 release installer for Windows 10.
Problem doesn't exist anymore. Fixed.
May 17 2023
As we now have preferences at the module level that can be done even in a better way. Now the mapper can set the default node settings for rendering if not already done. No need to have it handled by the reading code anymore.
I reeopened because I would like to llok into the feature branch at least and see what might be of interest:
@a178n Could you verify if the problem still exist or if it is fixed?
Hi there! 🙂
Hi there! 🙂