[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/2] avformat/movenc: support Opus packets with more than 60ms of audio when writing the Sample Group Description Box

[Carl Eugen Hoyos]

2018-08-24 17:53 GMT+02:00, James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com>:
> On 8/24/2018 12:47 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>> 2018-08-24 17:41 GMT+02:00, James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com>:
>>> On 8/24/2018 12:33 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>>>> 2018-08-24 17:31 GMT+02:00, James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com>:
>>>>> On 8/24/2018 7:19 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>>>>>> 2018-08-24 0:17 GMT+02:00, James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>> Fixes assertion failures when trying to mux such streams.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shouldn't this be 1/2?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And does this assert now for libavformat users that use
>>>>>> new libopus (but not libavcodec) or do I misunderstand?
>>>>>
>>>>> This asserts for any stream with >= 80ms packets. It doesn't need to be
>>>>> a direct encode from the libopus wrapper, since it can also happen
>>>>> during be a remux.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't this indicate that the assert is wrong?
>>>> (That invalid input can trigger the assert)
>>>
>>> Invalid input (say, a packet reporting a frame size of the equivalent of
>>> 1ms) would assert before and after this patch. Do you consider an assert
>>> that triggers on invalid input to be wrong?
>>
>> I wanted to write "definitely", I am a little puzzled now that you seem to
>> disagree.
>>
>> Yes, I think so: It probably depends on the definition of "invalid" but
>> I mean invalid data with valid api usage.

> I am completely lost in this discussion since i don't understand your
> concern about this at all, so please tell me what you want me to do so
> we can move on: Do i commit the patch as is, do i remove the assert line
> altogether, or do i replace it with a normal check?

I believe the assert should be replaced with a normal check and
return (and/or error message) but I am not sure if I understand
the situation correctly since you seem to disagree.
(For me this appears as a trivial technical issue, a mistake in the
current code, that does not need substantial discussion.)

Carl Eugen