[Insight-developers] proposal: remove the gdcm build options from ITK

[Bill Lorensen]

I think the itkGDCM tests should definitely stay. I assume that their
absence after modularization is not intentional.

Bill

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Alexandre GOUAILLARD
<agouaillard at gmail.com> wrote:
> hi
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Mark Roden <mmroden at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Previously, there were itk-gdcm specific tests, that could be run by typing
>>
>> ctest -R itkGDCM
>>
>> Those tests are no longer present since modularization.  I do not know
>> if they have been removed because they don't match the expectations of
>> the new scheme, or as an oversight, or if the gdcm_build_tests cmake
>> flag was supposed to cover it.  I'm putting this discussion on the
>> insight developers list as a result, so that perhaps I can get some
>> feedback on that.
>
> I'm checking that right now.
>
>>
>> Personally, I think that we should just have the itk gdcm tests back,
>> and not have the same coverage as the rest of gdcm.  ITK devs, at
>> least for the moment, don't need a complete tag editing solution, they
>> need to be able to read and write various forms of image data.  I'm
>> fairly certain that the previous test suite covered those cases.
>>
>
> We have to be positive.
>
>> The testing data size is a few megs, so not a big deal, and it's
>> retrieved through a git submodule init call in the gdcm root
>> directory.  That is a bit of a pain for deployment purposes, because
>> it means that any user who wants to use gdcm has to get a particular
>> set of images for testing, and they have to use a series of
>> non-obvious steps to get those images and set up the testing directory
>> (which is, as I said, currently blank).  I suppose that could be done
>> through the setupfordevelopment script, but that seems like overkill,
>> especially if the older itkgdcm tests did the job.
>>
>
> That sounds good, the actual testing/data is also retrieved thourgh a
> git submodule mechanism, so I guess, if we were to decide to take in
> the gdcm tests, there is no show stopper. We need to investigate if
> that s really what we want / need to do. i.e. we need to have a list
> of gdcm features available in ITK proper.
>
> alex.
>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Alex Gouaillard <agouaillard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi mark.
>>>
>>>> it would be good to know how these tests worked in the
>>>> past.
>>>
>>> Your job to find out.
>>>
>>> Then if those tests were not included, please answer the following questions first:
>>> - are those testing gdcm features exposed in itk ? If not, no need in itk proper.
>>> - what is the size of the testing data?
>>> - how do you get the data? (cvs? Svn? Tarball?...)
>>>
>>> Gaetan, can you then advice on using external project Thingy from cmake 2.8 ?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> 2011/3/11 Gaëtan Lehmann <gaetan.lehmann at jouy.inra.fr>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 12 mars 11 à 01:04, Mark Roden a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I notice that under the new (and the old, incidentally) cmake
>>>>>> options for itk, there are the four canonical gdcm options, namely:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> build_applications
>>>>>> build_examples
>>>>>> build_shared_libs
>>>>>> build_testing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, since the gdcm stuff is supposed to be rolled in directly
>>>>>> with ITK, these options don't make a whole lot of sense to me.
>>>>>> Indeed, choosing build_testing as an option leads to cmake errors
>>>>>> which, when solved, lead to many compilation errors when testing is
>>>>>> turned on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I propose to remove these options from the build process entirely.
>>>>>> The user isn't interested in gdcm per se, but in having dicom support
>>>>>> in itk.  That means that these options are not useful to the user, and
>>>>>> can only cause building problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd keep the tests, and turn them on automatically when ITK's option
>>>>> BUILD_TESTING is on. I don't think you will reimplement all the gdcm tests
>>>>> in ITK, so it would be nice that gdcm can be tested on the user system with
>>>>> the other ITK tests.
>>>>> This wouldn't be the only case: VXL tests are run with the ITK tests for
>>>>> example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gaëtan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Gaëtan Lehmann
>>>>> Biologie du Développement et de la Reproduction
>>>>> INRA de Jouy-en-Josas (France)
>>>>> tel: +33 1 34 65 29 66    fax: 01 34 65 29 09
>>>>> http://voxel.jouy.inra.fr  http://www.itk.org
>>>>> http://www.mandriva.org  http://www.bepo.fr
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Powered by www.kitware.com
>
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>
> Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
> http://kitware.com/products/protraining.html
>
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
>
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers
>