[Insight-users] IJ Test that will fail

[Kevin H. Hobbs]

My comments are below :

On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 12:57 -0400, Luis Ibanez wrote:
> A) You could add the test yourself by
>      following the procedure described in:
> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_Procedure_for_Adding_a_Test
> 
> or
> 
> B) You could send us the test's source code
>      and we could take care of adding it to the
>      toolkit.
> 

I'm sorry, my original e-mail was not clear enough.

I was trying to ask what I should do for an Insight Journal submission
that I'm working on. ( I now have permission to submit. ) I was not
asking about what I should do if I found a bug in ITK or IJ.

I know that my implementation of MPI Fast Marching will not produce the
exact same results as the serial algorithm but the MPI version seems to
work well enough for my requirements.

Should I directly compare the results from a serial run to those from a
parallel run and produce a failing test? This would make it very clear
what the implementation does not do.

Or should I produce a passing test that verifies the difference?

> 
> Please let us know what is your preference.
> 
> 
>  BTW: It would seem that filing a bug report
> on this issue may also be a good idea.

As to bugs in IJ and ITK: I already filed bug reports (or I have been
convinced that what I saw was not a bug) on everything I've noticed
recently.

I filed a feature request for IJ to support MPI.

I filed a bug report for ITK
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=9766 about how extracting a
piece from a reader which has had UpdateOutputInformation called but not
Update produces incorrect results. This bug report has code attached
which could become a test.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://www.itk.org/pipermail/insight-users/attachments/20091026/b7d340f7/attachment.pgp>