Skip to content
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

Two "Load Image Batch" in the same workflow leads to a bug #395

Open
Zeelyne opened this issue May 11, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Two "Load Image Batch" in the same workflow leads to a bug #395

Zeelyne opened this issue May 11, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@Zeelyne
Copy link

Zeelyne commented May 11, 2024

Hello,

I want to combine two lists of masks from two separate folders. I tried to initiate a batch process with the following workflow:

image

Interestingly, when I choose "random" or "single_image" in the "Load Image Batch," it works. However, if I choose "incremental_image," both "Load Image Batch" nodes keep outputing only the first image of their respective folders. No error message but the output is not what I suppose to get.

Then, I bypassed one of the "Load Image Batch" nodes to see the output when using "incremental_image." This time, it worked correctly!
image

It seems that there is a bug when using two "Load Image Batch" nodes in the same workflow. Can anyone tell me how to solve this problem?

Many thanks.

@Zeelyne
Copy link
Author

Zeelyne commented May 11, 2024

Oh I just found that, by using two different values in the "lable" for these two "load image batch", this problem can be solved.
However I am not very clear with the behind reason for that.
Waiting for a more detailed explanation for this issue.

@WAS-PlaiLabs
Copy link
Collaborator

Oh I just found that, by using two different values in the "lable" for these two "load image batch", this problem can be solved. However I am not very clear with the behind reason for that. Waiting for a more detailed explanation for this issue.

The nodes are from before node classes were persistent, so it's data is being stored in a dictionary, and the key to that nodes data is the label.

These days, it could be updated to store it's data on the class itself, since they are persistent now, and just use the node's ID and have no need for a label.

@Zeelyne
Copy link
Author

Zeelyne commented May 16, 2024

OK thank you! Hope to see the update

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants