On 5/27/2024 4:50 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
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
I mean, showinfo_bsf could be adapted in a way ffprobe can invoke/parse,
so all the related ffprobe code can be moved there.
thx
[...]
_______________________________________________
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".
_______________________________________________
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".
