Same annotations in different places depending on view (related to odd media asset size possibly?)

[MarkF]

Hi, Maureen!

Phew. I think it’s possible that I’ve finally fixed this issue, although it hasn’t yet gone through the whole code review and QA process. I ended up having to test some behavior on the production server, so the fixes are live on ACW currently. If you delete any old, problematic annotations on those wonkier images and re-draw manually, they should look better now. Can you confirm that this fixes the issues that you and your team were experiencing?

Incidentally, if you can find any examples of “portrait” style images that are still giving you trouble, I’d love to hear about those!

Thank you,
Mark

[MarkF]

Hi, Maureen!
It’s possible that you guys were doing that right as I was in the process of troubleshooting, for which I apologize if that’s the case.
Could I ask you to try to reproduce that problem again currently?

And regarding the screenshot you sent above, one of those annotations represents me deleting and re-drawing an annotation, and the other has not yet been deleted and re-drawn. What happens when you delete and re-draw?

Thanks for continuing to work with me on this,
Mark

[ACWadmin1]

Re: It’s possible that you guys were doing that right as I was in the process of troubleshooting, for which I apologize if that’s the case.
→ What specifically are you referring to here? I’m not sure what you want me to recheck. Also, we didn’t work on this encounter record after we posted the issue.

Re: screenshot of double annotation. First, I can’t add a new annotation bec that functionality isn’t working properly per note above. Also, I’m not sure why we’re re-drawing, especially as a virtual duplicate of the problematically placed annotation? The issue was in where the annotation was displaying - what I reported was that it displayed properly after your first round of fixes, I believe, but then when the researcher ran matching, the annotations then displayed offset.

So are you asking me to do the following? Delete one (or both) of these 2 encounters with the smaller than required/duplicated annotation and then go back and add a new one and then run matching and see if the problem reproduces of offset annotations post matching recurs?

Sorry, I’m confused by your note.

[MarkF]

Hi, Maureen!
I made a quick video that I hope answers all of your questions from above. Please let me know if it does not.

On mis-drawn manual annotations

-Mark

[MarkF]

@ACWadmin1 let me know if the above video satisfactorily answered any lingering questions.
Cheers,
Mark

[MarkF]

Hi, Marueen!

Thank you for the response.
I’m afraid that I am to blame for both the duplicate manual annotation you’ve pointed out and the encounter missing a media asset, which I also suspect resulted from deleting a manual annotation.

Going forward, I will notify you and your team when I have to test things in the production server (it was too difficult to reproduce your cheetah image behavior in a test environment) with sufficient advance notice.

I had not realized that your team was not in the practice of removing manual annotations. Let me stew on the issue you’ve raised here and chat with the team members and see if I can help in any way. The way you describe it makes it seem like it’s currently an un-useable feature for you.

This coming Thursday/Friday (my main support days), are you comfortable if I chase down which of those two manual annotations on the bottom left of the image was “mine” and remove it? Alternatively, you’re welcome to delete both of the erroneous ones, as you mentioned.

I will also try to address the missing media asset issue.

In the spirit of resolving this together,
Mark

[MarkF]

Hi, Maureen!
Thanks for all of the extra context; much appreciated!
I’m now suspecting that all of those encounters-with-missing-media-assets are the result of me creating and deleting A BUNCH of manual annotations during testing and failing to appreciate that they were just pooping out encounters.
I think that all that would need to happen would be to delete those encounters (if the encounter was created specifically to house the new manual annotation that has since been deleted, its reason for existence seems to be gone)?

Here’s what I’ll do on Thursday:
Using my test environment (which is workable for this issue), I’ll load a back up of the database from before I started working on this bug fix.
I’ll count the number of encounters associated with this occurrence and confirm that the (hopefully) new media-assetless encounters are from a recent date. If they are, I think we can safely assume that they’re an artefact from my bug testing, and that I simply didn’t clean up after myself. At that point, I think we’re safe to delete the extraneous encounters.

As for finding which encounters are media asset-less, I think that looking for missing camera icons is brilliant!
Ok. Focus, Mark. This is not a support day.
-Mark

[ACWadmin1]

Hi Mark - sounds like a good plan because at the same time you could look for the encounter that was assigned to CH00015 and the related media asset and somehow restore it to our production system?

Lemme know when you get back to support

thanks!
Maureen

[MarkF]

Hi, Maureen!
Ok I did some digging, and I think I can offer us mostly relief!
I restored the database as it was on 5 Feb., 2021 (before I was involved in this particular community thread) in my test environment.

I’m happy to report that those extra, media-asset-less encounters in occurrence https://africancarnivore.wildbook.org/occurrence.jsp?number=Census_08-09_2.CHEETAH_Original_3_JohannMey were not there previously. As in, they were entirely absent rather than present and containing media assets (see attached side-by-side of older db [left] vs new [right] for this occurrence). Note the negative search result for “edf0” circled in red on the old version and the positive search result for “edf0” circled in red on the new version.

.
I am fairly confident that this means that the encounters were generated as a result of me continuously creating and deleting manual annotations, and we are free to delete them.

As for the encounter edf08006-dc86-42ef-9265-5b4145403b7b, which is the one associated with individual CH00015? It doesn’t exist in the older database at all, either. I’m guessing I just wanted to test whether assigning a match worked. Unfortunately, I did so many tests related to this bug fix that I cannot remember for certain.

So, largely good news of the variety of, “I only added things rather than changing existing things”.

The one thing that I am confused about is that this individual CH00015 seems to have many more encounters in the new database compared to the 5 feb, 2021 version. Specifically, as of 5 Feb., CH00015 was only associated with two encounters: 05fb252c-831d-4769-9878-af45c7941468 (https://africancarnivore.wildbook.org/encounters/encounter.jsp?number=05fb252c-831d-4769-9878-af45c7941468) and encounter b300f08c-95bc-41b6-89ba-12d89ef3e2f7 (https://africancarnivore.wildbook.org/encounters/encounter.jsp?number=b300f08c-95bc-41b6-89ba-12d89ef3e2f7). I wonder whether this increase reflects legitimate work that someone from ACW did since February 5th, given that the images of the new encounters for this individual aren’t familiar to me?

My recommendation would be to delete those encounters on the occurrence “Census_08-09_2.CHEETAH_Original_3_JohannMey” that are missing media assets. I will let y’all do this unless you explicitly ask me to do it.

I will leave the old version of the database up on http://dev2.unacceptablebehavior.org/ for you to check out yourself if you want (feel no obligation). If you navigate there and use your normal log in credentials, you’ll be able to compare that Feb. 5 snapshot to the current https://africancarnivore.wildbook.org/ version.

I will be out of the office next week, so feel welcome to continue perusing that test instance url next week. If you have any more questions about anything, I’ll be happy to answer when I return!

Many thanks for continuing to troubleshoot with me,
Mark

[ACWadmin1]

Hi @MarkF - the many more encounters linked to CH00015 is likely the work of the researcher to whom this dataset belongs - she works on ACW daily, going through it sighting by sighting. If she came across a sighting of CH00015 that had a lot of pictures in it, then there could be a swath of encounters that get ID’d all at once. So no worries there.

I’ll have a look at the old database link you sent and compare the sighting of Johann Mey there vs the prod system but I expect you’re right in your assessment and that we can just delete those encounters without media assets in the PD system.

Meanwhile, I have a quick question to ask that I’d rather not post here - can you send me your email address? Don’t worry, nothing rude, I promise!

thanks
Maureen

[MarkF]

Hi, Maureen!

Glad to hear!

My email address is mark@wildme.org.

[ACWadmin1]

Thanks! Just sent you a note. I think this issue can be considered RESOLVED! Thanks so much for your help and perseverance!

Have a great week!

best
Maureen

[MarkF]

Hi, Maureen!
Thanks for this! I’ve filed a note to investigate Th/Fr.
Thanks!
-M

[MarkF]

@ACWadmin1 cross-posting here that WB-1634 fix has been deployed (from the post that was split out from this one).