Hi, The code that throws the not-committed yet exception checks two type systems - the one passed in (which has been committed), and the one associated with the CAS.
- This implies that the existing Type System in the CAS being deserialized into is missing a committed type system. Form 6 needs two type systems because it is designed to perform a kind of mapping/filtering - the two type systems don't need to be the same, and form 6 will silently ignore types and features of types where they're missing. There are variants of CasIOUtils which replace the CAS type system before deserialization. The JavaDocs for CasIOUtils say: For COMPRESSED_FILTERED_TS * it uses the embedded TS for decoding * it uses the external TSI to replace the CAS's existing type system and index definition if CasLoadMode == REINIT. Maybe the test is expecting the CAS's existing type system & index def to be replaced, but didn't specify REINIT? Or, of course, there might be a bug. What was the CasLoadMode for this test, and can you confirm the receiving CAS did not have a committed type system? -Marshall On 10/11/2017 6:20 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote: > On 11.10.2017, at 16:01, Marshall Schor <m...@schor.com> wrote: >> fixed in trunk. Thanks for testing :-) >> >> On 10/11/2017 9:50 AM, Marshall Schor wrote: >>> I think I found the cause: a faulty implementation of load(asInputStream, >>> aCAS, >>> typeSystem). >>> >>> Looking at the code, the 3rd argument is not used! It looks like something >>> happened when migrating from V2 -> V3 code base, because it's OK in the v2 >>> code >>> base. Maybe I can blame the cat (she sometimes jumps up onto my desk, >>> landing >>> on my keyboard, and randomly pressing keys...) :-) >>> >>> Apologies, and thank goodness for testing... > Now I'm seeing a new exception in the units tests using the three-argument > signature: > > org.apache.uima.cas.CASRuntimeException: Type Systems must be committed > before calling this method. > at > org.apache.uima.cas.impl.CasTypeSystemMapper.<init>(CasTypeSystemMapper.java:101) > at > org.apache.uima.cas.impl.TypeSystemImpl.lambda$0(TypeSystemImpl.java:1853) > at java.util.Map.computeIfAbsent(Map.java:957) > at > org.apache.uima.cas.impl.TypeSystemImpl.getTypeSystemMapperInner(TypeSystemImpl.java:1852) > at > org.apache.uima.cas.impl.TypeSystemImpl.getTypeSystemMapper(TypeSystemImpl.java:1841) > at > org.apache.uima.cas.impl.BinaryCasSerDes6.<init>(BinaryCasSerDes6.java:545) > at > org.apache.uima.cas.impl.BinaryCasSerDes6.<init>(BinaryCasSerDes6.java:639) > at > org.apache.uima.cas.impl.BinaryCasSerDes.reinit(BinaryCasSerDes.java:593) > at org.apache.uima.util.CasIOUtils.load(CasIOUtils.java:382) > at org.apache.uima.util.CasIOUtils.load(CasIOUtils.java:344) > at > de.tudarmstadt.ukp.dkpro.core.io.bincas.BinaryCasReader.getNext(BinaryCasReader.java:194) > at > de.tudarmstadt.ukp.dkpro.core.io.bincas.BinaryCasWriterReaderTest.read(BinaryCasWriterReaderTest.java:561) > at > de.tudarmstadt.ukp.dkpro.core.io.bincas.BinaryCasWriterReaderTest.test6Lenient(BinaryCasWriterReaderTest.java:164) > ... > > Mind, I actually do explicitly call typeSystem.commit() on the type system > passed as the third argument before passing it. > > Any immediate ideas? > > Best, > > -- Richard > > > >
