KStars v3.5.0 Release Date?

Jasem Mutlaq mutlaqja at ikarustech.com
Sat Nov 14 22:57:06 GMT 2020 

Got a link to the image?

A user sent me this log:

[2020-11-14T02:18:16.415 UTC WARN ][                       default] -
QObject::startTimer: Timers can only be used with threads started with
QThread
[2020-11-14T02:18:16.443 UTC WARN ][                       default] -
QtDBus: cannot relay signals from parent
Phonon::AbstractAudioOutput(0x4cfbe30 "") unless they are emitted in the
object's thread QThread(0xcf9258 ""). Current thread is QThread(0x507d2a8
"").
[2020-11-14T02:18:16.444 UTC WARN ][                       default] -
QtDBus: cannot relay signals from parent QObject(0x4cfbe30 "") unless they
are emitted in the object's thread QThread(0xcf9258 ""). Current thread is
QThread(0x507d2a8 "").
[2020-11-14T02:18:16.485 UTC WARN ][                       default] -
QObject::~QObject: Timers cannot be stopped from another thread

Anyone seen anything like this? It appears to be related to Phonon playing
notification sounds and not an internal error for KStars.

--
Best Regards,
Jasem Mutlaq



On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 11:02 PM Wolfgang Reissenberger <
sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de> wrote:

> Robert, all,
> I had the issue again when trying to solve a wide field image around
> NGC6888, which contains very dense star fields. I am using the 1-Default
> profile without any change.
>
> If I leave the „Parallel Algorithm“ option from the Astrometry Parameters
> on „Auto“, Kstars solves the image very fast, but remains on 100%. It seems
> that the in parallel running threads were hanging.
>
> I am using the following versions:
> KStars: 57c44d05c3e1f9895d84c7f4f73950975e8eddb7
> StellarSolver: 2d7eba6685c1bcd77c0525e88b3d24b2fcd474a9
>
> Anything I could test right now?
>
> Wolfgang
>
> Am 10.11.2020 um 15:50 schrieb Robert Lancaster <rlancaste at gmail.com>:
>
> Hi Wolfgang,
>
> So I just want to clarify something you said here, there are a couple of
> parallel things and that can be a little confusing, so I just want to make
> sure we are talking about the same things.  The cause of the confusion is
> the terminology that astrometry.net uses
>
> 1. Load all Indexes in Memory / Load all indexes in Parallel.  This is
> the inParallel option for astrometry.net.   In the options I tried to
> call this “Load all Indexes in Memory” to attempt to avoid the confusion
> with the Parallel Algorithm.  This has nothing to do with parallelization
> in different threads or processors.  It has to do with memory management.
> The astrometry.net solver can load the indexes and search them one after
> the other, or it can try to load all the indexes at once and then solve.
> The second option is much much faster, but comes with risk.
> astrometry.net does NOT check to see if it has enough RAM before it tries
> to solve,  They have big warnings in the documentation about using this
> option.  If you don’t have enough RAM, it could use all the RAM and crash.
>
> I programmed StellarSolver to check the available RAM prior to starting
> the solve.  If there is not enough RAM, it is supposed to turn off the
> option.  The user can also disable the option entirely, so that there is
> never a problem.  But you really do want the option turned on if your
> system can handle it.  We had some issues earlier about the RAM
> calculation.  I think the “inParallel” option causes the greatest crash
> risk.  I would really like it if somebody could look over the code for
> determining enough RAM and see if it is good now.  One thought that I have
> is that we can make the calculation more conservative and we could change
> the option to have 3 choices, Auto, on, or off.  So that if a user is
> really brave, or convinced they have enough RAM for sure, they could turn
> the option on regardless of the risk, If they are risk averse, they could
> turn it off, but most users could just leave it on auto.  What do you think?
>
> 2. Parallelization Algorithm for solving.   I am assuming this second
> option is what you meant in your email.  This one is entirely of my
> creation and is what makes StellarSolver stellar.  Modern computers really
> have great capacity for computing in parallel and it causes a HUGE
> performance boost to use this capability, even on a Pi, since the PI has 4
> processors.
>
> I programmed StellarSolver to have 2 different parallel algorithms, one
> that solves simultaneously at multiple “depths” and one that solves
> simultaneously at different scales.  If you set it to Auto, it will select
> the appropriate one based on whether you specified the scale or position
> (or neither).  If the image has both scale AND position, it does NOT solve
> in parallel and goes back to solving with a single thread.
>
> When Jasem wanted to me to de-thread the StellarSolver and make it so that
> just the solvers are threads, I had to make a bunch of changes and one
> change I forgot was to make the star extraction before parallel solving
> asynchronous.  That does mean that when doing a parallel solve, it might
> look like things have frozen for a moment during the star extraction before
> the threads start up.  I have already fixed this, but it is in the
> releaseExperiment branch of StellarSolver, not in Master.  I would like to
> get this fix integrated before we release, but I will need to test this
> thoroughly first as I mentioned in a previous email.  I am wondering if
> this freezing behavior was what caused the “crash” you observed?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob
>
>
> On Nov 10, 2020, at 8:03 AM, Wolfgang Reissenberger <
> sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de> wrote:
>
> OK, I did a quick check on my RPi4 with Parallel Algorithm set to „Auto“ -
> and it works super fast! But since it is daytime, I can only test the „Load
> and Slew“ option. So maybe the WCS info in the file gave hints that are not
> present for normal capture and slew or sync.
>
> I need to check it under real conditions, which might be tricky due to the
> fog hanging around here…
>
> Wolfgang
>
> Am 10.11.2020 um 11:16 schrieb Jasem Mutlaq <mutlaqja at ikarustech.com>:
>
> Alright, let's look at this:
>
> 1. Parallel algorithm: This is related to SOLVER, not image partitioning.
> It should work fine on Rpi4 and the checks are more reliable now as Robert
> worked on that.
> 2. WCS Polar Align: Can this be reproduced with simulators?
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Jasem Mutlaq
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:48 AM Wolfgang Reissenberger <
> sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de> wrote:
>
>> It wasn’t that bad. The problem was that KStars went to 100% CPU usage
>> and died (or I killed it, do not exactly remember). I’ll try to reproduce
>> it...
>>
>> Am 10.11.2020 um 08:45 schrieb Hy Murveit <murveit at gmail.com>:
>>
>> OK, well I believe it was fixed a week ago, so if you can still recreate
>> it, you should report it.
>> It should be fixed before release if it is still freezing the Pi.
>>
>> Hy
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:42 PM Wolfgang Reissenberger <
>> sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, I have to check it. The problem occurred only a few days ago and I
>>> think I’m always on bleeding edge...
>>>
>>> Am 10.11.2020 um 08:38 schrieb Hy Murveit <murveit at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Wolfgang: I believe Rob and/or Jasem fixed the issue with parallel
>>> algorithm bringing down the RPi4 a while back.
>>> I have the solver on auto parallelism and load all indexes in memory,
>>> and it seems to work fine (and in parallel).
>>> Similarly, for star extraction, Jasem implemented a threaded extraction
>>> that also automatically determines how many threads to use and seems fine
>>> on the RPi4.
>>>
>>> Eric: I believe these parallel options are the defaults. Hopefully users
>>> won't need to configure things like this.
>>> For star detection, I don't believe you can turn it off.
>>> For star detection Jasem split the frame before detection (into at most
>>> num-threads parts--4 for the RPi4).
>>> For align, I'm not sure how Rob divided things.
>>>
>>> Hy
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:07 PM Wolfgang Reissenberger <
>>> sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I think we are close to finishing the release. I personally would opt
>>>> to wait for another week and keep an eye stability.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we should take another look if the default settings in the
>>>> StellarSolver profiles work a) for typical camera/scope combinations and b)
>>>> for all platforms.
>>>>
>>>> For example with my RPi, I needed to change the Parallel Algorithm to
>>>> „None“ because parallelity brought KStars down. Is the default setting
>>>> „None“ and I changed it somewhen? With all the new parameters I would
>>>> prefer having a robust setup and leave it to the user to optimize speed.
>>>>
>>>> @Jasem: please take a closer look to MR!122, since it fixed 4(!)
>>>> regressions I introduced with my capture counting fix MR!114. Hopefully now
>>>> we have at least a proper coverage with automated tests...
>>>>
>>>> Wolfgang
>>>>
>>>> Am 09.11.2020 um 22:04 schrieb Jasem Mutlaq <mutlaqja at ikarustech.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Folks,
>>>>
>>>> So back to this topic, any major blockers to the KStars 3.5.0 release
>>>> now?
>>>>
>>>> 1. Remote Solver should be fixed now.
>>>> 2. StellarSolver Profiles are more optimized now.
>>>> 3. Handbook not updated yet, but we can probably work on this shortly.
>>>> 4. Couple of pending MRs to take care of.
>>>>
>>>> How about Friday the 13th?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Jasem Mutlaq
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 3:41 AM Robert Lancaster <rlancaste at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok so then we would be changing the way we do version numbering with
>>>>> this, right?
>>>>> I believe now we typically add features in each new iteration 3.4.1,
>>>>> 3.4.2, etc etc
>>>>> and when it is really big like StellarSolver, then we make it a big
>>>>> release like 3.5.0
>>>>>
>>>>> With this new paradigm, we wouldn’t put new features into the master
>>>>> of the main 3.5 branch
>>>>> But instead we would work on a new 3.6 branch, and then bug fixes
>>>>> would go into the 3.5 branch
>>>>> to make each new minor release, like 3.5.1, 3.5.2 etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do I have this correct?
>>>>>
>>>>> If this is right, then it would be longer before users see new
>>>>> features in the main branch, but the
>>>>> tradeoff is that the main branch would have a LOT more stability.  I
>>>>> see this as a big positive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Nov 4, 2020, at 5:54 PM, Eric Dejouhanet <
>>>>> eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hello Hy,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Version 3.5.0 is only the beginning of the 3.5.x series, with more
>>>>> > bugfixes on each iteration (and possibly, only bugfixes).
>>>>> > So I have no problem leaving unresolved issues in 3.5.0.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > For instance, the Focus module now has a slight and unforeseeable
>>>>> > delay after the capture completes.
>>>>> > The UI reflects the end of the capture only, not the end of the
>>>>> detection.
>>>>> > This makes the UI Focus test quite difficult to tweak, as running an
>>>>> > average of the HFR over multiple frames now has an unknown duration.
>>>>> > Right now, the test is trying to click the capture button too soon 2
>>>>> > out of 10 attempts.
>>>>> > But this won't block 3.5 in my opinion (and now that I understood the
>>>>> > problem, I won't work on it immediately).
>>>>> >
>>>>> > In terms of reporting problems, the official way is stil
>>>>> bugs.kde.org,
>>>>> > but there's quite a cleanup/followup to do there.
>>>>> > I'd say we can use issues in invent.kde.org to discuss planned
>>>>> > development around a forum/bugzilla issue or invent proposal (like
>>>>> > agile stories).
>>>>> > There are milestones associated with several issues (although I think
>>>>> > they should be reviewed and postponed).
>>>>> > And we can certainly write a punchlist: check the board at
>>>>> > https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/milestones/3
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Le mer. 4 nov. 2020 à 22:38, Hy Murveit <murveit at gmail.com> a écrit
>>>>> :
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Eric,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I would add to your list:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> - KStars Handbook (review update sections to reflect 3.5.0) and
>>>>> finally (perhaps manually if necessary) put the latest handbook online.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> - Review the extraction settings. I spent a bit of time looking at
>>>>> the default HFR settings, and based on some experimentation (truth be told,
>>>>> with a limited amount of data) adjust things a little differently than my
>>>>> first guess (which was basically focus' settings).
>>>>> >> Rob: My intuition is that I should adjust the default StellarSolver
>>>>> star-extraction settings for Focus and Guide as well in
>>>>> stellarsolverprofile.cpp. I don't know whether you've already verified
>>>>> them, and want to release them as they are, or whether they are a first
>>>>> shot and you'd welcome adjustment?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Also, Eric, I suppose I should be adding these things here:
>>>>> https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/issues
>>>>> >> Is that right? Sorry about that--ok, after this thread ;) But
>>>>> seriously, your email is a good summary, and from that link
>>>>> >> it doesn't seem as easy to see which are "must do by 3.5.0" and
>>>>> which are "nice to have someday".
>>>>> >> A 3.5.0 punchlist would be a nice thing to have.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Hy
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 12:58 PM Eric Dejouhanet <
>>>>> eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Hello,
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Where do we stand now in terms of bugfixing towards 3.5.0?
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> - StellarSolver has all features in, and 1.5 is finally out at
>>>>> Jasem's PPA.
>>>>> >>> - However Gitlab CI still complains about that lib package (see
>>>>> >>> https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/jobs/75941)
>>>>> >>> - Unitary tests are being fixed progressively, mount tests are
>>>>> down to
>>>>> >>> ~20 minutes (yeees!)
>>>>> >>> - From my tests, the remote Astrometry INDI driver is not usable
>>>>> >>> anymore from Ekos.
>>>>> >>> - The issue raised with flat frames is confirmed fixed (at least
>>>>> by me).
>>>>> >>> - Meridian flip is OK (but I had not enough time to test TWO flips
>>>>> in a row).
>>>>> >>> - Memory leaks are still being researched in Ekos.
>>>>> >>> - There is an issue when duplicating an entry in a scheduler job,
>>>>> >>> where the sequence associated is copied from the next job.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Could we get a 3.6 branch where we will merge development of new
>>>>> features?
>>>>> >>> And master for bugfixing 3.5.x until we merge 3.6 new features in?
>>>>> >>> (we'd still have to port bugfixes from master to 3.6)
>>>>> >>> I don't think the opposite, master for 3.6 and a separate living
>>>>> >>> 3.5.x, is doable in the current configuration (build, ppas,
>>>>> MRs...).
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> --
>>>>> >>> -- eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com - https://astronomy.dejouha.net
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > -- eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com - https://astronomy.dejouha.net
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kstars-devel/attachments/20201115/fdadf91d/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Kstars-devel mailing list