On 6/16/2017 9:36 PM, Marton Balint wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, James Almer wrote: > >> On 6/16/2017 8:24 PM, Marton Balint wrote: >>> The md5 protocol has no seek support, but some tests use seeks. This >>> changes >>> the fate tests to actually create the output files and calculate the >>> md5 on the >>> written files, which also makes the tests independent of the size of >>> the output >>> buffers and output buffering in general. >> >> The fact md5() forced non seekable output came in handy to test certain >> codepaths, especially in matroska. Perhaps you could instead add a new >> fate-run.sh function for this change and port those tests that use >> output formats that don't behave any different in non seekable output? >> > > IMHO when most people are using the md5 test, they are typically not > aware the lack of seek support. Considering how many md5 tests are used > all over fate, I'd rather create a test named md5pipe which uses the md5 > protocol (this name better reflects the streaming property of the test > as well), and change the matroska tests to use that, if you really want > to test the streaming output.
Yes, that also works. The idea is to keep a working fate function that can easily let us test muxers when using non seekable output. > > BTW in the matroska muxer, should a non-seekable output and using the > -live option produce the same result? Because there are some places in > the code which only checks if -live is set, and I am not sure if that is > intentional. Probably not. All the code related to the -live option is nowadays somwhat precarious after further development and merges took place in the muxer. > > Regards, > Marton > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
