[Dcmlib] Checkin the 'Value Multiplicity'

[Jean-Pierre Roux]

Mathieu Malaterre wrote:

> Jean-Pierre Roux wrote:
>
>>   Hi, Mathieu, Benoit.
>>
>> Something you probabely forgot, is the entry 'Type' :
>
> Nope, see the comment I put in gdcm::DataEntry::IsValueCountValid.
> This is definitely on my TODO list. We should not pretend being able 
> to write DICOM file without support for this. Otherwise we'll have to 
> support yet another broken DICOM file format: the one produce by gdcm. 
> So as long as we are not able to check that, I would say that the file 
> we write are invalid (which seems to be the case, since dciodvy also 
> complains about gdcm file).

I do agree with you.
We *must* write kosher dicom files.
I think the good way is to check *our* files at write time (or when a 
user -us?- sets a value).

I probabely wrote something stupid in the 'mandatory' entries default 
writing.
I tried to install dicom3tools, to check the files we write;
But 'imake' hangs ... (I probabely forgot to modify something somewhere ...)
Why don't everybody use CMake :-( ?

We shouldn't be happy whith gdcm wtiter till there is not a single 
warning running dciodvy.

JP

>
>>
>>   // Entries whose type is 1 are mandatory, with a mandatory value
>>    // Entries whose type is 1c are mandatory-inside-a-Sequence,      
>> //                          with a mandatory value
>>   // Entries whose type is 2 are mandatory, with an optional 
>> value     // Entries whose type is 2c are mandatory-inside-a-Sequence,
>>   //                          with an optional value
>>   // Entries whose type is 3 are optional
>>
>>
>> It's *not* in the Dicom Dictionary;
>
>
> This is again why I wanted a more XML like dictionary: so much more 
> flexible (by design). And as a side note I am working on it, there is 
> only one tag from ACR-NEMA that is causing trouble (where VM depend on 
> VR...).
>
>> For a  given Tag, it may change, depending on the Modality and/or 
>> whether it's or not embedded inside a Sequence.
>> (Have a look at the various conformance statements ...)
>>
>>
>> Still wishing to check it at reading time?
>
>
> Again it depends what you call read time. If we reread gdcm written 
> file, then yes we should definitely check that the file written are 
> valid, otherwise we'l just spread some more 'deceased' DICOM files.
>
> 2 cents,
> Mathieu
>