False errors when validating RT Dose IOD

[feher-melos]

The validate_iods.py tool prints false errors about attributes that depend on the presence of Pixel Data:

Errors
======
Module "RT Dose":
Tag (0028,0002) (Samples per Pixel) is not allowed due to condition:
  Pixel Data exists
Tag (0028,0004) (Photometric Interpretation) is not allowed due to condition:
  Pixel Data exists
Tag (0028,0101) (Bits Stored) is not allowed due to condition:
  Pixel Data exists
Tag (0028,0102) (High Bit) is not allowed due to condition:
  Pixel Data exists

See:
https://dicom.innolitics.com/ciods/rt-dose/rt-dose/00280002

This is fixed by this diff:

diff --git a/dcm_spec_tools/validator/dicom_file_validator.py b/dcm_spec_tools/validator/dicom_file_validator.py
index 26be196..53b2897 100644
--- a/dcm_spec_tools/validator/dicom_file_validator.py
+++ b/dcm_spec_tools/validator/dicom_file_validator.py
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ class DicomFileValidator(object):
     def validate_file(self, file_path):
         self.logger.info('\nProcessing DICOM file "%s"', file_path)
         try:
-            data_set = filereader.read_file(file_path, stop_before_pixels=True)
+            data_set = filereader.read_file(file_path, stop_before_pixels=False)
         except InvalidDicomError:
             return {file_path: {'fatal': 'Invalid DICOM file'}}
         return {

Is there a reason why the Pixel Data is skipped when reading the DCM files?
Should it be an option for the validate_iods.py command line tool to read also the Pixel Data attribute?

[mrbean-bremen]

Thanks! I wasn't aware anybody was using this at all :)
The reason that PixelData is skipped was performance, as far as I remember, but I obviously didn't see this problem at the time.

[mrbean-bremen]

@feher-melos - I made a bugfix release with the change.