COCOReader images argument can be used to provide a custom order of images
#2597
Conversation
… samples Signed-off-by: Joaquin Anton <janton@nvidia.com>
| 'suit-2619784_1280.jpg' : 39, | ||
| 'business-suit-690048_1280.jpg' : 41, | ||
| 'car-604019_1280.jpg' : 59 | ||
| 'car-race-438467_1280.jpg' : 17, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the previous data was actually wrong.
| If specified, it acts as a filter for the file paths present in the annotation file. | ||
| If left unspecified or set to None, all images listed in the annotation file are read. | ||
| If specified, it acts as a filter for the file paths present in the annotation file, which will be | ||
| read in the same order as they appear in the list. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would add a note that names could repeat and given sample would be read multiple times.
| std::unordered_map<std::string, detail::ImageInfo*> image_info_map; | ||
| std::unordered_map<int, size_t> custom_order; | ||
|
|
||
| for (const auto &filename : images_) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about calling reserve first?
| 'business-suit-690048_1280.jpg' : 41, | ||
| 'car-604019_1280.jpg' : 59 | ||
| 'car-race-438467_1280.jpg' : 17, | ||
| 'clock-1274699_1280.jpg' : 6, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would add a test where a custom order with repetition is provided.
Signed-off-by: Joaquin Anton <janton@nvidia.com>
| i = 0 | ||
| while i < len(images): | ||
| out = pipeline.run() | ||
| assert out[0].at(0) == expected_ids[i] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe just put here another loop that iterates batch_size times instead of hardcoding the repetition two times?
| custom_orders = [ | ||
| None, # natural order | ||
| [0, 2, 4, 6, 1, 3, 5, 7], # altered order | ||
| [0, 1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 4, 1, 5, 2, 6, 7], # with repetitions |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you add a case for ID that doesn't exist in the dataset?
|
|
||
| constexpr inline RLEMask() : UniqueHandle() {} | ||
|
|
||
| struct RLEMask { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why? Shouldn't RLEMask be marked as non-movable, non-copyable if not using proper move/copy semantics?
Signed-off-by: Joaquin Anton <janton@nvidia.com>
|
!build |
|
CI MESSAGE: [1973019]: BUILD STARTED |
|
CI MESSAGE: [1973019]: BUILD PASSED |
Signed-off-by: Joaquin Anton janton@nvidia.com
Why we need this PR?
Pick one, remove the rest
What happened in this PR?
Fill relevant points, put NA otherwise. Replace anything inside []
Rework the way that
imagesargument is consumed, so that the images are sorted according to the order they appear in the provided file listFix wrong data in tests
COCOReader
COCOLoader changes
Test updated
Operator documentation updated
JIRA TASK: [DALI-1791]