New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Invalid dims failure in 32-bit Python on Windows #1472

Closed
matthew-brett opened this Issue Mar 21, 2018 · 4 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@matthew-brett
Member

matthew-brett commented Mar 21, 2018

I'm just building Dipy wheels for Windows, for Dipy 0.13.0

32 and 64 bit Pythons 2.7, 3.4, 3.5, are OK, 64-bit 3.6 is OK, but there's a test error for 32-bit Python 3.6:

======================================================================
ERROR: dipy.tracking.tests.test_utils.test_rmi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "c:\python36\lib\site-packages\nose\case.py", line 198, in runTest
    self.test(*self.arg)
  File "c:\python36\lib\site-packages\dipy\tracking\tests\test_utils.py", line 472, in test_rmi
    I2 = ravel_multi_index([A, B, C, D], dims=[1000] * 4)
ValueError: invalid dims: array size defined by dims is larger than the maximum possible size.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

https://ci.appveyor.com/project/matthew-brett/dipy-wheels/build/job/9u7643cl4xmif2r4#L3660

For Python 3.6 I had to use numpy 1.13, rather than 1.10.3 as for the other versions, because h5py requires it. So that might be a part of the explanation. Also the values in that test are random - but I got the same error running the tests locally. Any thoughts?

@arokem

This comment has been minimized.

Member

arokem commented Mar 21, 2018

Looks like a recurrence of #1299

@matthew-brett

This comment has been minimized.

Member

matthew-brett commented Mar 22, 2018

I thought I recognized it ...

@arokem

This comment has been minimized.

Member

arokem commented Mar 22, 2018

I assume you are building this from the release version? Seems like this was resolved in #1300. Can we close this?

@matthew-brett

This comment has been minimized.

Member

matthew-brett commented Mar 22, 2018

Yes, right, I was building from 0.13.0. Closing, thanks.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment