upload the same image twice to the prearchive

24 views
Skip to first unread message

Miklos Espak

unread,
Apr 18, 2013, 2:04:22 PM4/18/13
to xnat_di...@googlegroups.com
Hi,

I was testing the image upload on an xnat 1.6.1 site. I used the same test image, and tried to upload it several times.

First time it succeeded (let's say S01), but when I tried to upload it again to another subject (S02), the following happened:

  - the uploader applet finished, and showed a link to S02, to archive it.
  - there was no image for S02 in the prearchive (!)
  - if I clicked on the link on the last page of the applet, it brought me to the archiving form of S01, not S02.

I found that if I archive or delete the image for S01 from the prearchive then I can upload the image again.

I accept that it is not a real life situation to store the same image for several subjects in the prearchive, but some kind of feedback would be helpful. :)

Regards,
Miklos

Herrick, Rick

unread,
Apr 18, 2013, 2:35:32 PM4/18/13
to xnat_di...@googlegroups.com

That’s weird. I’ll have to walk through those steps. Yes, it’s not realistic, but we do that ALL THE TIME in our development environments: just upload the same image again and again, so it should work.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "xnat_discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to xnat_discussi...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to xnat_di...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/xnat_discussion?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 




The material in this message is private and may contain Protected Healthcare Information (PHI). If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail.

Tim Olsen

unread,
Apr 18, 2013, 3:15:45 PM4/18/13
to xnat_di...@googlegroups.com

We’ve run into this a lot lately in some of our testing scripts.  The Upload Applet code will merge uploaded data into a pre-existing prearchive session IF the study instance UIDs match and they are in the same project.  Uploading the same study instance UID to different subjects in the same project isn’t something that usually happens in production, so this issue really only effects testers and developers.  But, its super annoying just the same. 

 

The culprit is that the applet uses a DICOM uploader service that shares most of its guts with the C-STORE receiver.  The C-STORE should group data together by the study instance UID, but the applet should not.  We’ve known about the problem for a while, but haven’t gotten it fixed because it theoretically doesn’t affect production and other things do. 

 

Just the same, we should really get this fixed.  Its confused our testers way to many times.

 

Tim

Miklos Espak

unread,
Apr 19, 2013, 12:07:55 PM4/19/13
to xnat_di...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Tim, for confirming this bug. I agree that at a production site nobody should want to store the same image for different subjects. However, if someone attempts it for mistake, the upload should either be rejected, or at least he/she should be warned, but I think, silently merging the images in the prearchive is not acceptable neither in a production environment.

I was testing the uploading itself, since I could not upload images because of another problem that I wrote about last week. So, first I upgraded to the "tip", then downgraded to 1.6.1, but no luck. Then I played with the anonymisation script, no success. Altogether, I spent hours with this yesterday, until I found that this time the upload failed for another reason.

The most confusing was that there was no error in the logs, since merging the images of the same study is a feature of the DICOM SCP.

Now, that I am aware of this behaviour, I can pay attention to it, so it's all right.

Thanks,
Miklos

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages