Details
-
Type:
Bug
-
Status: Done
-
Resolution: Done
-
Fix Version/s: None
-
Component/s: afw
-
Labels:
-
Story Points:2
-
Epic Link:
-
Sprint:AP S19-6
-
Team:Alert Production
Description
While finishing DM-19616, I noticed a problem with the multiprocessing Pool and a schema that contained a String Field. I added a test to afw that reproduces this error, and I will fix it on this ticket.
E lsst.pex.exceptions.wrappers.LengthError:
|
E File "src/table/FieldBase.cc", line 72, in lsst::afw::table::FieldBase<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char> >::FieldBase(int)
|
E Size must be provided when constructing a string field. {0}
|
E lsst::pex::exceptions::LengthError: 'Size must be provided when constructing a string field.'
|
My guess is that I need to tweak the pybind11 py::pickle code in schema.cc, possibly special-casing the String FieldBase type.
Attachments
Issue Links
- blocks
-
DM-19616 Make IngestIndexReferenceObjectsTask multiprocessing capable
- Done
Activity
Description |
While finishing {code}} E lsst.pex.exceptions.wrappers.LengthError: E File "src/table/FieldBase.cc", line 72, in lsst::afw::table::FieldBase<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char> >::FieldBase(int) E Size must be provided when constructing a string field. {0} E lsst::pex::exceptions::LengthError: 'Size must be provided when constructing a string field.' {code} My guess is that I need to tweak the pybind11 {{py::pickle}} code in {{schema.cc}}, possibly special-casing the String FieldBase type. |
While finishing {code} E lsst.pex.exceptions.wrappers.LengthError: E File "src/table/FieldBase.cc", line 72, in lsst::afw::table::FieldBase<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char> >::FieldBase(int) E Size must be provided when constructing a string field. {0} E lsst::pex::exceptions::LengthError: 'Size must be provided when constructing a string field.' {code} My guess is that I need to tweak the pybind11 {{py::pickle}} code in {{schema.cc}}, possibly special-casing the String FieldBase type. |
Reviewers | Krzysztof Findeisen [ krzys ] | |
Status | To Do [ 10001 ] | In Review [ 10004 ] |
Status | In Review [ 10004 ] | Reviewed [ 10101 ] |
Resolution | Done [ 10000 ] | |
Status | Reviewed [ 10101 ] | Done [ 10002 ] |
Epic Link |
|
Krzysztof Findeisen: do you mind taking on this small-ish review (~100 lines)? If you can suggest a better solution to the Field/Key specializations here, I'd be interested to see it. Jim Bosch suggested this approach.