KumarLabJax / JABS-behavior-classifier

Behavior Classifier Component from the Jax Animal Behavior System
Other
12 stars 2 forks source link

Issue6 #8

Closed gbeane closed 2 years ago

gbeane commented 2 years ago

more correct fix for issue #6

this ensures all features are loaded from previously computed hdf5 file. This way, when recomputing window features, we have all necessary features to compute all of the window features supported by a given pose file (even if the current project doesn't use all of those features)

gbeane commented 2 years ago

sorry @gerring, there are no tests added by this PR. This is about the max amount of effort that I can spend on this. Maybe a good intern project to mock everything up needed to add good unit test coverage for every class...

gbeane commented 2 years ago

last PR fixed the exception Leinani was seeing adding a new window size via the GUI, but the newly generated window feature files only included features enabled in the current project. When adding additional window sizes using the command line script, the resulting window feature files contained all features supported for a given pose files, even if some of those features are unused by the current project. This change now matches that behavior when adding new window sizes in the GUI.

hessil commented 2 years ago

Issue is still occurring for me

gbeane commented 2 years ago

Issue is still occurring for me

Did you checkout this branch?

hessil commented 2 years ago

Yes

hessil commented 2 years ago

I've just deleted the cache and features for the project and am running that, this will take a while to check

gbeane commented 2 years ago

I've just deleted the cache and features for the project and am running that, this will take a while to check

okay. I was able to reproduce your exact error with the project you sent me with Dropbox, and this branch resolved it for me.

hessil commented 2 years ago

Clearing cache+features seemed to do the trick! Haven't got an error yet training on a second window size

SkepticRaven commented 2 years ago

Appears as though the test from the prior pull request broke the cache/feature folders. We should add "verify feature cache" as a feature request so that updating between versions goes a bit more smoothly.

gbeane commented 2 years ago

Appears as though the test from the prior pull request broke the cache/feature folders. We should add "verify feature cache" as a feature request so that updating between versions goes a bit more smoothly.

so feature h5 files and other cache files include a version number that gets bumped when an incompatible change in file format is introduced so they are automatically re-created if they're an out of date format.

Unfortunately in this case a bug in the previous pull request (that was closed without merging) appears to have caused a problem with cached files.

SkepticRaven commented 2 years ago

Appears as though the test from the prior pull request broke the cache/feature folders. We should add "verify feature cache" as a feature request so that updating between versions goes a bit more smoothly.

so feature h5 files and other cache files include a version number that gets bumped when an incompatible change in file format is introduced so they are automatically re-created if they're an out of date format.

Unfortunately in this case a bug in the previous pull request (that was closed without merging) appears to have caused a problem with cached files.

Makes sense. Probably not necessary then if its limited to potential changes breaking stuff.