@Enet4 ​​Hi, why hasn't this PR been merged yet? Is there anything blocking it? Does it need more testing?​

I just didn't get to it yet. Let me assess and revise on Nathan's comment first, hopefully within the next few days.

I rebased the branch and added UR as one of the VRs to use the default character set by default. Things seem to be in order. @momostarsky I noticed a deleted post here, are there still any issues?

@Enet4 It might be an issue with testing or configuration. I'll verify later using storescu and storescp to check if it affects read/write operations.

@Enet4 Building on the earlier tests, Test some DICOM files with character sets such as "ISO 192", "ISO 100", "GB18030", and "ISO 2022 IR 58". Modify the storescp implementation in store_sync.rs around line 192, add code similar to the following:
'''
match dicom_object::OpenFileOptions::new()
.charset_override(CharacterSetOverride::AnyVr)
.read_until(tags::PIXEL_DATA)
.open_file(&file_path)
{
Ok(dcm_obj) => {
match dcm_obj.element(tags::SPECIFIC_CHARACTER_SET) {
Ok(elm) => {
println!(
"SPECIFIC_CHARACTER_SET: {:?}",
elm.value().to_str()
);
}
Err(_) => {
warn!("Specific Character Set tag not found in the DICOM file");
}
};

                                    match dcm_obj.element(tags::BODY_PART_EXAMINED) {
                                        Ok(elm) => {
                                            println!(
                                                "BODY_PART_EXAMINED: {:?}",
                                                elm.value().to_str()
                                            );
                                        }
                                        Err(_) => {
                                            warn!("Body Part Examined tag not found in the DICOM file");
                                        }
                                    };
                                }
                                Err(e) => {
                                    warn!("Failed to read back stored file: {}", e);
                                }
                            }

'''
no abnormalities were found. Should we test with more datasets?

That sounds to offer good coverage already, thanks! If in the meantime you found what could be considered a bug, please file a new issue.