Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Refactor cdrdao toc/table functions into Task and provide progress output #345

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Feb 2, 2019

Conversation

jtl999
Copy link
Contributor

@jtl999 jtl999 commented Dec 8, 2018

This PR fixes issue #299 and also refactors the cdrdao read toc function into a Task as a prerequisite for this. I've rebased my changes against the upstream/develop branch and ran a test rip just now.

A question. Now that at present we aren't using fast_toc, do we really need to read the TOC and table separately, when it appears they contain the same data, except for the offset in the table. Would shave some time off ripping if it's possible to only need to do it once, but I feel such a change would be out of scope of this PR.

Fixes #299.

@jtl999
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtl999 commented Dec 8, 2018

Didn't know you used Flake8. I'll go take a look at implementing the changes so it passes later if needed/wanted.

@JoeLametta
Copy link
Collaborator

💖 Thanks for opening your first pull request here! 💖

Didn't know you used Flake8. I'll go take a look at implementing the changes so it passes later if needed/wanted.

I've just rebased your branch on whipper's develop and fixed flake8's warnings with a new commit.
I haven't reviewed the changes, maybe you could split them into several commits? (for increased clarity)

@JoeLametta JoeLametta changed the title Refactor cdrdao toc/table functions into Task and provide progress output WIP: Refactor cdrdao toc/table functions into Task and provide progress output Dec 9, 2018
@jtl999
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtl999 commented Dec 9, 2018

Argh. It took me longer to rebase them onto a single commit but I'll see what I can do.

@jtl999
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtl999 commented Dec 9, 2018

From my personal feature branch (without the single commit rebase)

I'll look over each commit and provide a more detailed commit message for each commit.

commit 3445eb2804d840508319779c21c4acee22df18fa (HEAD -> verbose-toc, origin/verbose-toc, gitlab/verbose-toc)
Author: JTL <[email protected]>
Date:   Fri Dec 7 23:25:02 2018 -0800

    Another attempt at getting preserve-toc working

commit 4ccf4093f4d1cd88a417f8d0d8dcfebb3124a69c
Author: JTL <[email protected]>
Date:   Wed Dec 5 22:14:55 2018 -0800

    First attempt at getting toc path working

commit 0761111934c9830f95dffceb55091d4418881ea2
Author: JTL <[email protected]>
Date:   Sun Dec 2 21:46:44 2018 -0800

    Provide progress of cdrdao toc reading to console

commit 825ca380227a985c47379f269aed7ce12d346ac9
Author: JTL <[email protected]>
Date:   Sat Dec 1 21:35:51 2018 -0800

    Add cdrdao regexes to cdrdao.py

# This was a private notes text file for myself, not needed to be merged.
commit b89fde4439f92e268530a669cf89ebdd21783d75
Author: JTL <[email protected]>
Date:   Sat Dec 1 17:40:53 2018 -0800

    Add notes for cdrdao regex parsing

commit 1e69a3db50cfd25831b8dada364e2c61e6ac3993
Author: JTL <[email protected]>
Date:   Sat Dec 1 17:26:21 2018 -0800

    asynchronously be able to parse cdrdao output now

commit b9fe29d6df06ce5c8de2ab5c60d110ab4410862e
Author: JTL <[email protected]>
Date:   Fri Nov 30 21:48:23 2018 -0800

    cdrdao is now a Task

commit 1a9e64ce6061bb705acb491ad2ee9b82a412fc01
Author: JTL <[email protected]>
Date:   Fri Nov 30 19:23:06 2018 -0800

    Remove some unneeded code

commit a92145d36135e16227b5098bb7bfa11168e6bdd1
Author: JTL <[email protected]>
Date:   Fri Nov 30 19:08:56 2018 -0800

    Work on inital attempt to move cdrdao to a Task

@jtl999
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtl999 commented Dec 11, 2018

Alright.

Redid my issue/299 branch privately with more commits and more of an explanation per commit. That being said I merged the bugfix/issue-335-drop-caching branch from upstream into it and then realized that it's technically not merged into master yet.

What's the best course of action in your opinion?

@jtl999
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtl999 commented Dec 11, 2018

Managed to undo that merge via rebase and force pushed an update to issue/299

@jtl999
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtl999 commented Dec 11, 2018

A note: The progress for reading TOC/table isn't "exact" because it updates the progress upon cdrdao having started analyzing a track, as opposed after it's finished analyzing a track.

Just thought I'd mention that.

@JoeLametta
Copy link
Collaborator

I've just rebased your branch on whipper's develop, squashed some commits and fixed flake8's warnings with a separate commit.

@MerlijnWajer
Copy link
Collaborator

Why is it called ReadTOC_Task with a '_' now? (Just a nitpick)

@jtl999
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtl999 commented Dec 13, 2018

Because while I was debugging cdrdao.py I wanted to have both functions still available.

I'm sure it can be safely changed back now. Oops.

@JoeLametta
Copy link
Collaborator

I've just rebased your branch on whipper's develop (fixing the conflicts) and restored the old task name (ReadTOCTask)... 😉

@jtl999
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtl999 commented Dec 13, 2018

I see. Thanks!

@JoeLametta
Copy link
Collaborator

A question. Now that at present we aren't using fast_toc, do we really need to read the TOC and table separately, when it appears they contain the same data, except for the offset in the table. Would shave some time off ripping if it's possible to only need to do it once, but I feel such a change would be out of scope of this PR.

Related issue #173.
More information about fast_toc in #264. 😉

Copy link
Member

@Freso Freso left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just from looking at the code, I don't see anything wrong, but the meat of it is also more grok at 11 PM as I'm winding down and getting ready for sleep. :)

A couple of stylistic comments at least though.

whipper/program/cdrdao.py Show resolved Hide resolved
whipper/program/cdrdao.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
whipper/program/cdrdao.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@jtl999
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtl999 commented Dec 14, 2018

Implemented the style changes.

With regards to your comment on IRC (about the mix of single and double quotes) how do you feel it should be done? I was trying to emulate the style of whipper/programs/cdparanoia.py (Which I read to understand the task system)

@Freso
Copy link
Member

Freso commented Dec 14, 2018

With regards to your comment on IRC (about the mix of single and double quotes) how do you feel it should be done?

I usually go for single quoting in my own projects, but am fine with double quotes too. Just as long as it's consistent. Anyway, I didn't remark on it on my previous comment to this PR, because it is irrelevant to this PR. Please just keep your commits atomic and your PRs self-contained. If we want to fix quotation style, that is its own PR (or something that can be done gradually in other PRs once it's been decided on one way or another).

Edit: I just now see that @JoeLametta went ahead and added a commit to this PR anyway, making https://github.com/whipper-team/whipper/pull/345/files even harder to make sense of. 🤦‍♂️ @JoeLametta, can we please try and keep PRs self-contained? Please? 🙇‍♂️

whipper/program/cdrdao.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@JoeLametta
Copy link
Collaborator

@Freso Sorry for the mess, I've redone everything from scratch. Hope it's better this time...

@jtl999
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtl999 commented Dec 14, 2018

can we please try and keep PRs self-contained?

I agree.

@JoeLametta
Copy link
Collaborator

@Freso Do you think latest revision of this pull requests is ready for merging?

@jtl999
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtl999 commented Jan 18, 2019

Something that might be out of scope for this PR but worthwhile for the 1.0 milestone: My uncle pointed out recently when I was showing him the code and explaining to him how it works (He's been a long time Linux user, but not much of a programmer outside of very trivial Python tasks and specifically was an early user of cdparanoia/cdda2wav and EAC in late 90's.

He thinks the functionality of the code is great but it should have some documentation explaining the concept of Q sub-channel errors and what it means for ripping the disc. In my case with a TSSTCorp SH-S223L and some scratched CD's I tested with, getting above 1500 Q sub-channel errors on a track usually means I cant reliably rip said track because whipper gets CRC mismatches in Test and Copy mode.

@JoeLametta
Copy link
Collaborator

Something that might be out of scope for this PR but worthwhile for the 1.0 milestone

👍

@JoeLametta JoeLametta merged commit 3e79032 into whipper-team:develop Feb 2, 2019
@welcome
Copy link

welcome bot commented Feb 2, 2019

Congrats on merging your first pull request! 🎉🎉🎉

@JoeLametta JoeLametta changed the title WIP: Refactor cdrdao toc/table functions into Task and provide progress output Refactor cdrdao toc/table functions into Task and provide progress output Feb 2, 2019
@Freso
Copy link
Member

Freso commented Mar 17, 2019

This introduced #374

mtdcr added a commit to mtdcr/whipper that referenced this pull request Sep 22, 2019
Broken since whipper-team#345 was merged.

Signed-off-by: Andreas Oberritter <[email protected]>
mtdcr added a commit to mtdcr/whipper that referenced this pull request Sep 22, 2019
Output lines of cdrdao for single digit track numbers with a
whitespace character.

Broken since whipper-team#345 was merged.

Signed-off-by: Andreas Oberritter <[email protected]>
mtdcr added a commit to mtdcr/whipper that referenced this pull request Oct 20, 2019
Broken since whipper-team#345 was merged.

Signed-off-by: Andreas Oberritter <[email protected]>
mtdcr added a commit to mtdcr/whipper that referenced this pull request Oct 20, 2019
Output lines of cdrdao for single digit track numbers start with a
whitespace character.

Broken since whipper-team#345 was merged.

Signed-off-by: Andreas Oberritter <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants