Anonymization doesn't regenerate SOPInstanceUIDs

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi -

I just pushed a study from Osirix to an Orthnac server, anonymized it, then did 
a query/retrieve to get it back. I then exported the dicom headers from the 
first image in the original and anonymized studies and did a diff. The results 
are almost exactly what I wanted with one exception - the SOPInstanceUIDs are 
identical in both studies.  The Study and Series instance UIDs are different.

This seems to me to be a bug. I can see why this might be a reasonable thing to 
do if you're worried about (say) reformatted images that have a reference to 
the original SOPInstanceUID and you don't want to break the relationship. But 
wouldn't you want to remap the SOPInstanceUIDs in the general case because 
these might be used as primary keys in a PACS database? 

I haven't looked at the code yet - I'll do that this weekend unless someone can 
clarify the issues for me. Thanks.

Sean

Original issue reported on code.google.com by sdo...@gmail.com on 19 Jun 2015 at 12:37

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Dear Sean,

I have tried and reproduced your issue, without success.

Whenever I anonymize a study, all the SOPInstanceUIDs are regenerated and are 
different from that of the original study, as you expect.

Would it be possible for you to give the precise steps that are needed to 
reproduce the problem? The ideal would be an integration test that could be 
added to the following repository:
https://bitbucket.org/sjodogne/orthanc-tests/src/30ecc857fa076d8c815c4f36f529c7b
c9937a89e/Tests/Tests.py?at=default

Thanks,
Sébastien-

Original comment by s.jodo...@gmail.com on 23 Jun 2015 at 12:22

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Any news on this issue? I will close it soon if no further information is 
provided. Thanks!

Original comment by s.jodo...@gmail.com on 27 Jul 2015 at 10:06

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Please close the issue. 

Since I put this in I have upgraded from 0.8.6 to 0.9.0. I just did a round 
trip and all the UIDs were remapped. I don't know if this is something that was 
fixed or if it was (my) user error.

Sorry for the delay in responding. 

Thanks.

Original comment by sdo...@gmail.com on 27 Jul 2015 at 4:22

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Fine! Thanks for the feedback, I close the issue.

Original comment by s.jodo...@gmail.com on 28 Jul 2015 at 6:12

• Changed state: Invalid