Thu, Nov 18
Pushed new branch T28863-DiffPropSerializerTest.
I would like to discuss the possibilities again since this it is a common thing that the same node predicates are defined over and over again in different classes.
Maybe someone can take the time and invest in some research to find possible solutions:
I think this is a good tasks that can be done by everyone. Check the warnings on your local MITK build and see if you can fix them.
Also, go to https://cdash.mitk.org/index.php?project=MITK -> "Build" column -> "Warn" column (inside the "Nightly" section) and click on the number of your system (e.g. https://cdash.mitk.org/viewBuildError.php?type=1&buildid=15376). See if you can fix some of the mentioned warnings (e.g.
/home/ubuntu/jenkins-agent/MITK/Nightly/src/MITK/Modules/ContourModel/DataManagement/mitkContourElement.cpp: In member function ‘void mitk::ContourElement::InsertVertexAtIndex(const Point3D&, bool, mitk::ContourElement::VertexSizeType)’: [CTest: warning matched] /home/ubuntu/jenkins-agent/MITK/Nightly/src/MITK/Modules/ContourModel/DataManagement/mitkContourElement.cpp:107:13: warning: comparison of unsigned expression >= 0 is always true [-Wtype-limits] if (index >= 0 && this->GetSize() > index)
@m907r While working on the image statistics tasks you could write down your insights on how the front-end and the back-end are designed and how they are restructured to gradually add information for this task. This will help us write a clean / improve the developer-manual for the image statistics plugin / module.
I think this is a task were everybody can have a look at and try do debug the relevant code to at least provide some more information in this task and to narrow down the problem.
Please someone have a look at this task and try to understand / reproduce what is happening here.
Could we get an insight about what happened here?
Status-wise nothing has really changed since we sent out the messages a while back.
Regarding the last release-cycle: my impression was that it would help to direct testers more to suitable test data. People who have suitable data themselves can still use that, but those who don't are blocked from testing if not provided with data. As I see it, we could either achieve this by either
- naming suitable provided test data explicitly in the checklists
- creating a reference document that lists data types and respective test data
- restructuring / renaming files in MITK-data to make it more clear of what type they are
I think option 2 would be pretty simple to implement and might not reduce the likelihood of people using their own data when possible, as option 1 might do when directly recommending certain test data, but would add another layer of complexity / another file to keep track of (for us, as well as the testers).
Deleted branch from rMITK MITK: feature/T28861-SupportVisualStudio2022.
Wed, Nov 17
What is the status here? And what was your impression during the last release-cycle: Is it necessary to define publicly available user test data or did the approach work to have checklist-tester use their own data?
Do we need to explicitly mention test data in the checklists or is it sufficient to provide examples for 2D, 3D, 4D data and other types of data that is required?
This fix broke some rendering tests regarding scaling. Please fix/revert as soon as possible since these tests have precedence.
Pushed new branch T28859-ConnectomicsReader.
The checklist has been overhauled during the last release cycle. Need to check if everything is fine and in accordance with the other "modern" checklists.
Pushed new branch T28858-FiberFitTest.