[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v3 1/1] fftools/ffprobe: print size of attachment streams (extradata_size)

Sat Nov 27 15:12:31 EET 2021

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Michael
> Niedermayer
> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2021 1:19 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v3 1/1] fftools/ffprobe: print size of
> attachment streams (extradata_size)
> 
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 12:58:30AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:01:23PM +0000, Soft Works wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: ffmpeg-devel <mailto:ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> Michael
> > > > Niedermayer
> > > > Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 10:26 PM
> > > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <mailto:ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> > > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v3 1/1] fftools/ffprobe: print size
> of
> > > > attachment streams (extradata_size)
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 07:55:40PM +0000, Soft Works wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: ffmpeg-devel <mailto:ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> Michael
> > > > > > Niedermayer
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 7:50 PM
> > > > > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <mailto:ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v3 1/1] fftools/ffprobe: print
> size of
> > > > > > attachment streams (extradata_size)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 04:59:41PM +0000, Soft Works wrote:
> > > > > > > Another attempt: Created on Linux and zipped...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > tested and works
> > > > > > LGTM
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Today I've seen that the v3 version with the patch as an attachment
> has
> > > > > been processed by patchwork:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/patch/CH0P223MB03639F30A548FA85C1
> > > > mailto:7E8855BA629 at CH0P223MB0363.NAMP223.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM/
> > > > >
> > > > > I've also verified that the output from git format-patch on Linux was
> the
> > > > > same as on Windows. Also, I sent e-mails with the attached patch to
> myself
> > > > > (google-to-google and google-to-ms) and verified that the attachments
> were
> > > > > unchanged.
> > > > >
> > > > > My preliminary conclusion for patches containing long lines:
> > > > >
> > > > > For patchwork: Use the --attach param for git send-patch
> > > > > For Michael and maybe others: send as zip attachment 😊
> > > > > (not that I could tell the reason)
> > > > >
> > > > > Might be interesting to check whether there's a difference between
> the
> > > > > e-mail you get and the file you get when downloading the mbox from
> > > > patchwork.
> > > >
> > > > The attachemnt after the mailing list is broken:
> > > > https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-
> > > > devel/attachments/20211125/daa80b4e/attachment.bin
> > > >
> > > > if you want to help fix this, thats welcome
> > > >
> > > > That patchwork has a working patch is interresting but iam not sure if
> the
> > > > awnser to this will help, the problem seems before. So we need a fix
> before
> > > > if you are interrested in helping, there was some prior occurance of
> this
> > > > maybe there was some additional information in that thread
> > >
> > > There are two problems - I'm not sure which one you are talking about:
> >
> > theres a problem which has occured previously, for which there is one
> > or more threads on the ML
> > if you want to help, find these threads. Throwing out ideas which are
> > not even consistent with the current facts causes people like me to
> > waste time looking at the wrong places.
> > Let alone the problem was not that we didnt know where the bug was
> > IIRC it was that someone had to fix it
> > It is true that the new instance here has some currently unexplained
> > behaviours but neither your 1. or 2. works at explaining them
> >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > 2. You didn't correctly receive the patch sent as attachment
> > >
> > > I just double-checked: The ML software didn't modify the patch when
> attached
> > > (as plain-text .patch)
> >
> > how did you check that ?
> > it is broken on my side and it is broken on the server as you can see by
> > looking at the link i posted
> > Also i mailed the correct patch to myself as plain/text attachment and
> > its perfectly fine. Neither my SMTP server not my local mail handling
> > did anything odd to the long line
> > OTOH the mail i received from the ML though contains a base64 encoded
> > attachment and inside that is a broken patch
> > if you say you have received a good one then my first intuition is to
> > ask you to check that again
> > i took the attachment decoded it with command line base64 -d and it
> > was not good
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Patchwork could apply this correctly, so I'm not sure what went wrong
> > > in that case when you couldn't apply it?
> >
> > Your attachment is broken on the server already, again
> > your mail with the attachment:
> > https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2021-November/288260.html
> > and the attachment:
> > https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20211125/daa80b4e/attachment.bin
> > a954c4f6237453e91ab3e0327ec5eae9  attachment.bin <-- this is the broken one
> >
> > patch --dry-run -p1 <attachment.bin
> > checking file doc/ffprobe.xsd
> > checking file fftools/ffprobe.c
> > Hunk #1 succeeded at 2769 (offset -14 lines).
> > checking file tests/ref/fate/concat-demuxer-extended-lavf-mxf
> > checking file tests/ref/fate/concat-demuxer-extended-lavf-mxf_d10
> > checking file tests/ref/fate/concat-demuxer-simple1-lavf-mxf
> > checking file tests/ref/fate/concat-demuxer-simple1-lavf-mxf_d10
> > checking file tests/ref/fate/concat-demuxer-simple2-lavf-ts
> > checking file tests/ref/fate/flv-demux
> > checking file tests/ref/fate/mov-zombie
> > checking file tests/ref/fate/mxf-probe-d10
> > checking file tests/ref/fate/oggopus-demux
> > checking file tests/ref/fate/ts-demux
> > checking file tests/ref/fate/ts-opus-demux
> > checking file tests/ref/fate/ts-small-demux
> > patch unexpectedly ends in middle of line
> > Hunk #1 FAILED at 145.
> > 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED
> >
> > you can just try to download it from the web archieve and
> > try for yourself its broken before my mail stuff ever sees it
> > and that is not inline
> > Neither your case 1. nor 2. explain this and this is a bug
> > on the server somewhere, i dont remember where but i think i
> > knew it previosuly what caused this
> > something along the postfix - mailman chain probably
> > i also faintly remeber considering to simply bump the 998
> > limit up to workaround it
> > maybe anton or someone else remembers more details
> > I sadly dont have enough time ATM to really re-investigate this
> 
> I had a bit more time to look into this
> 
> this issue may be unrelated to the 998 line limit, the patch on this mail
> is simply corrupted
> no matter if i take it from the received mail or the mailman archive
> 
> patch --dry-run -p1 <~/v3-0001-fftools-ffprobe-print-size-of-attachment-
> streams-.patch
> ...
> checking file tests/ref/fate/ts-small-demux
> patch unexpectedly ends in middle of line
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 145.
> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED
> 
> but with -F9
> patch --dry-run -p1 -F9  <~/v3-0001-fftools-ffprobe-print-size-of-attachment-
> streams-.patch
> checking file tests/ref/fate/ts-small-demux
> patch unexpectedly ends in middle of line
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 145 with fuzz 3.
> 
> This 2nd case is likely how patchwork could apply the patch
> 
> the corruption is a missing crlf, if i add it by hand it works without -F9
> 
> if i apply it locally and rebuild the patch with format-patch
> 
> git format-patch -1
> git checkout HEAD^
> patch --dry-run -p1 <0001-Try.patch
> it works fine

That’s a really tricky case, because v2 of the patch (sent inline) had 
in fact incorrect line breaks (see screenshot).

Then I sent the patch as an attachment (v3) and that in turn had the effect that
the last line is ending without a line break.

Finally I sent the whole patch as a zipped attachment - which worked (of course),
and the patch you created locally works as well (not surprising).

But there are still two problems:

1. Patches sent to the ML as inline get long lines truncated
2. Patches sent as attachment are missing a final line break

for 1., I'm sure it's a universal problem for everybody.
for 2., I'm wondering whether it's just my E-Mail client which removes that last 
line break when sending or whether that happens somewhere else...

Thanks,
softworkz
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screenshot 2021-11-27 140357.png
Type: image/png
Size: 82760 bytes
Desc: Screenshot 2021-11-27 140357.png
URL: <https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20211127/9fff5576/attachment.png>