On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 04:33:21PM -0300, James Almer wrote: > On 5/27/2024 4:31 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 09:20:55PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 03:17:15PM -0300, James Almer wrote: > > > > On 5/27/2024 3:11 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 10:15:43AM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > > > > > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-04-27 02:36:23) > > > > > > > This allows detecting issues in side data related code, same as > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > framecrc does for before already for packet data itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > I am against this patch. Checksumming side data is a fundamentally > > > > > > wrong > > > > > > thing to do. > > > > > > > > > > It, or something equivalent is neccessary for regression testing. > > > > > (and it was you who asked also for the tests i run to be part of > > > > > fate. But here you object to it) > > > > > > > > > > You know, not checking side data is not checking it so differences > > > > > would then not be > > > > > detected allowing for unintended changes to be introduced (aka bugs) > > > > > > > > You have seen how much code is needed to get hashing to work for all > > > > targets > > > > with some types, > > > > > > framecrcenc.c | 76 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > > 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > 70 more lines of code, in my patch > > > > > > If we need another 70 to handle some corner cases, no idea if we do, thats > > > still negligible > > > > > > > > > > so it does feel like it's not the right thing to do. > > > > > > I dont think i can follow that logic > > > > > > > > > > ffprobe (and f_sidedata) are what should be used for actual integrity > > > > checks. > > > > > > ffprobe cannot test ffmpeg, ffmpeg is a seperate excutable > > > > > > If you suggest that side data should not be tested in FFmpeg while > > > packet.data > > > should be tested. That position seems inconsistant to me > > > > > > If you suggest that neither side data nor packet.data should be tested in > > > FFmpeg > > > iam confident that there would be a majority disagreeing. > > > > > > f_sidedata is not at the output of ffmpeg so even if it could test it, it > > > does not test the ffmpeg output. > > > We also dont replace running md5sum and framecrc on ffmpeg output by a > > > bitstream > > > filter. > > > > > > Again, there is need to test what comes out of FFmpeg, thats at the muxer > > > level > > > thats what framecrcenc does. > > > > There is also an additional aspect > > and that is efficiency or "time taken by all fate tests" > > framecrcenc already has all the side data, it costs basically 0 time to > > print that > > > > any ffprobe based check needs to run everything a 2nd time, so it will be > > slower > > > > also ffprobe is only good for side data from the demuxer. > > my patch tests all cases including side data from the encoder or any other > > source that gets forwarded to the muxer in each testcase. > > We could extend showinfo_bsf to print side data information.
Well, you argued a moment ago that its too much code (in framecrcenc) its not going to be less code if the same or more detailed information is printed in a showinfo_bsf again, my suggestion is that this code should go to where side data is and then showinfo_bsf, framecrcenc and ffprobe can use it thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Observe your enemies, for they first find out your faults. -- Antisthenes
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
