[Paraview] Attempting to run Catalyst CFullExample

Thu Jun 6 12:56:08 EDT 2013

Hi Bill,

The Catalyst examples were meant more for batch processing examples (i.e.
specified output files at given intervals). I didn't test them with
connecting to Catalyst and all of the Python scripts in there probably have
that functionality disabled. I'm updating some of the stuff to make Live In
Situ work better but those fixes probably won't go into ParaView master
until next week. I'll send you an email for notification when it's fixed.

Andy

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Bill Sherman <shermanw at indiana.edu> wrote:

> Hi Andy, list,
>
>
>  My changes went into ParaView on 5/29 (the commit SHA is
>> 617e91e3f318a22a54aca7e82b8ab1**a0f5d88820) which is after your version
>> of
>> ParaView. That should fix your issue. After doing a "git pull" you can
>> do a "git checkout 617e91e3f318" to get that revision but I would
>> suggest just using the master version (also make sure to do a git
>> submodule update from the main source directory).
>>
>> The Catalyst examples commit SHA which you'll want is
>> f041507af5f6f010c9f8a2de8b3014**ae19a2394b.
>>
>> There are plans to make the Catalyst examples tested nightly so that
>> things don't get out of sync causing these headaches. That probably
>> won't get done before the 4.0 release though.
>>
>
> That will be good.
>
> Okay, so progress report -- works more, but not all the way.
>
> I tested both with a git master from this morning as well as
> with "git checkout 617e91e3f318", and got the same results for
> both.
>
> And before I report the output for "CFullExample", I thought I'd try a
> couple of the other examples ("CxxFullExample" and "CxxImageDataExample",
> and I got a different (non-working) result -- and that is, that it just
> returned to the prompt without apparently connecting to ParaView, but
> it did produce datafiles for every 10th time step (as well as the
> "fullgrid"
> for the first and last time steps) -- actually, that now happens for all
> the examples I've tried.
>
>
> Okay, so back to what happens with "CFullExample", which now is clearly
> connecting to the ParaView Catalyst tool.  After it connects, a popup
> appears saying:
>                 "Catalyst Disconnected"
>
>                 "Connection to Catalyst Co-Processor has been terminated
>                 involuntarily. This implies either a communication error,
> or
>                 that the Catalyst co-processor has terminated. The Catalyst
>                 session will now be cleaned up. You can start a new one if
> you
>                 want to monitor for additional Catalyst connection
> requests."
>
> Now, behind it, in the pipeline browser, I can see that some modules
> have been connected to teh catalyst input icon:
>                 * PVTrivalProducer1
>                 * Slice1
>
> But then I click "OK" on the popup, and everything goes away.
>
> The shell and the "Output Messages" window report this:
>                 ERROR: In /home/avl/VR/Apps/ParaView/**
> ParaView_git20130605/VTK/**Parallel/Core/**vtkSocketCommunicator.cxx,
> line 812
>                 vtkSocketCommunicator (0x2b009d0): Could not receive tag. 1
>
> Looks like definite progress, but not quite there.
>
>  Regards,
>> Andy
>>
>
>         Thanks,
>         Bill
>
>
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Bill Sherman <shermanw at indiana.edu
>> <mailto:shermanw at indiana.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hello again,
>>
>>
>>         FYI: I just updated the Catalyst examples (commit SHA
>>         f041507af5f6f010c9f8a2de8b3014**__ae19a2394b) to work with
>>
>>         ParaView as of
>>         today's gatekeeper review (commit SHA
>>         a3508bd9e0164c85968d6cde64e227**__5cd57aab3c).
>>
>>
>>
>>     Great. I now have some time to do more testing and learning.
>>
>>
>>         If you get issues, let me know.
>>
>>
>>     Okay, so I'm now getting a different error when I run the Catalyst
>>     application/script:
>>     % ./FEDriver SampleScripts/feslicescript.py
>>
>>     Traceback (most recent call last):
>>     File "<string>", line 2, in <module>
>>     File "SampleScripts/feslicescript._**_py", line 87, in DoCoProcessing
>>     coprocessor.__**DoLiveVisualization(__**datadescription,
>> "localhost", 22222)
>>     File
>>     "/home/avl/VR/Apps/ParaView/__**ParaView_git20130528/Build/__**
>> lib/site-packages/paraview/__**coprocessing.py",
>>     line 155, in DoLiveVisualization
>>     self.__LiveVisualizationLink = servermanager.__**vtkLiveInsituLink()
>>
>>     NameError: global name 'servermanager' is not defined
>>
>>     And that is repeated 11 times.
>>
>>
>>     So, the versions I'm using are: the Catalyst examples from master.zip
>>     where the files are all dated 05/29/13 17:59.
>>
>>     And a ParaView git clone that reports:
>>     % git show HEAD
>>     commit 723b5455491ef913ed1083f75e34c2**__820d1f06e8
>>
>>     Merge: d915ca0 3e6ceec
>>     Author: Utkarsh Ayachit <utkarsh.ayachit at kitware.com
>>     <mailto:utkarsh.ayachit@**kitware.com <utkarsh.ayachit at kitware.com>>>
>>
>>     Date: Fri May 24 10:41:11 2013 -0400
>>
>>     Merge topic 'update_version_rc2'
>>
>>     3e6ceec Update version to 4.0.0-RC2
>>
>>     So I guess that's a slightly different commit than what you were
>>     testing against -- but I downloaded it 05/28/13, so only one day
>>     difference.
>>
>>     I can try a newer (or different) version of ParaView, but I'm not
>>     sufficiently familiar with git to know how to request a specific
>>     commit code.
>>
>>     Recommendations?
>>
>>         Andy
>>
>>
>>     Thank you,
>>     Bill
>>
>>
>>         On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Bill Sherman
>>         <shermanw at indiana.edu <mailto:shermanw at indiana.edu>
>>         <mailto:shermanw at indiana.edu <mailto:shermanw at indiana.edu>>**>
>> wrote:
>>
>>         Lucas, Andy,
>>
>>         Thank you both for your responses.
>>
>>
>>         On 05/29/2013 12:42 PM, Andy Bauer wrote:
>>
>>         Hi Bill & Lucas,
>>
>>         I was on vacation the last several days and am now finally
>>         catching up.
>>
>>         Thanks for the info on the examples not working with the 4.0
>> release
>>         candidates. I haven't tested them in a while so it's possible that
>>         something is out of sync. As Lucas mentioned, Catalyst had quite
>>         a bit
>>         of changes recently but it should have calmed down by now. I'll
>>         try and
>>         get the examples updated as well in the next couple of days. Once
>>         ParaView 4.0 comes out I'll tag the examples as well and
>>         hopefully in
>>         the not too distant future put up a dashboard with the examples
>>         running
>>         against ParaView master to help keep things in sync.
>>
>>
>>         Great.
>>
>>
>>         I think Lucas answered your questions well but let us know if
>>         there's
>>         still something that isn't quite clear.
>>
>>
>>         Yes, I think once I see a working example and the steps needed
>>         to get
>>         there I should be off to the races. I haven't decided yet
>>         whether I'll
>>         go back and compile the 05/14/13 version of ParaView, or perhaps
>>         wait
>>         until you've had a chance to update the examples for the upcoming
>>         release.
>>
>>         I've got a book chapter due, so I may just wait until I get that
>>         done
>>         and see where things are.
>>
>>         Regards,
>>         Andy
>>
>>
>>         Thanks again for your help,
>>         Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.paraview.org/pipermail/paraview/attachments/20130606/35ea2348/attachment.htm>