Closed
Bug 1199878
Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
WebMDemuxer/WebMContainerParser don't properly handle media segment (cluster) ending after the first block.
Categories
(Core :: Audio/Video: Playback, defect)
Core
Audio/Video: Playback
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla43
People
(Reporter: jya, Assigned: jya)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug, )
Details
Attachments
(2 files)
2.89 KB,
patch
|
kinetik
:
review+
Sylvestre
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
4.75 KB,
patch
|
kinetik
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
The issue was found investigating bug 1199583.
The test case was reproduced at the URL.
segment 19 is a continuation of segment 18; and contains a single block before starting a new cluster.
If the WebMTimeDataOffset returned by the WebMBufferedParser has a new cluster starting at index 1; WebMContainerParser::ParseStartAndEndTimestamps will return false ; even though we do have samples in it.
Expected Outcome:
It should return true and the start and end time of this block.
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → jyavenard
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•9 years ago
|
||
We can know with certainty the duration of a block if we have a following one. We do not have to always rely on having a previous segment to estimate the duration.
Attachment #8654464 -
Flags: review?(kinetik)
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•9 years ago
|
||
Now that the ContainerParser can detect cluster's end without having to wait for the next one we have the situation were a cluster is made of a single block, with a single frame. Under such circumstances, the WebM demuxer would attempt to estimate the duration based on the last frame timestamp which by default is 0. With mediasource a media segment doesn't always start at 0.
For such cluster, and for mediasource to prevent an unforeseen regression, we hold off this frame until more is appended.
Attachment #8654582 -
Flags: review?(kinetik)
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•9 years ago
|
||
Matthew, I'm flying away early tomorrow morning.
Could you push it if you're happy with the changes? thanks
Flags: needinfo?(kinetik)
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Summary: WebMContainer doesn't properly handle media segment (cluster) ending after the first block. → WebMDemuxer/WebMContainerParser doesn't properly handle media segment (cluster) ending after the first block.
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Summary: WebMDemuxer/WebMContainerParser doesn't properly handle media segment (cluster) ending after the first block. → WebMDemuxer/WebMContainerParser don't properly handle media segment (cluster) ending after the first block.
Updated•9 years ago
|
Attachment #8654464 -
Flags: review?(kinetik) → review+
Updated•9 years ago
|
Attachment #8654582 -
Flags: review?(kinetik) → review+
Updated•9 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(kinetik)
Comment 5•9 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/8d9743e32b80
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/d92acf7fd4ce
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla43
Comment 6•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8654464 [details] [diff] [review]
[MSE/webm] Properly calculate media segment duration.
Requesting 42 uplift of both changes on this bug.
Approval Request Comment
[Feature/regressing bug #]: MSE webm playbck
[User impact if declined]: playback can stall, harder to backport other changes.
[Describe test coverage new/current, TreeHerder]: Landed on m-c, manual testing.
[Risks and why]: Risk is minimal. This affects only WebM MSE playback, which is disabled on 42. I want it uplifted to reduce variance between the trees.
[String/UUID change made/needed]: None.
Attachment #8654464 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Updated•9 years ago
|
status-firefox42:
--- → affected
Comment 7•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8654464 [details] [diff] [review]
[MSE/webm] Properly calculate media segment duration.
If this can simplify your work, taking it.
Attachment #8654464 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora? → approval-mozilla-aurora+
I'm hitting conflicts trying to uplift this to aurora. Can we get branch specific patches for this?
Flags: needinfo?(jyavenard)
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•9 years ago
|
||
This is the order in which the patches should be applied:
https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=6a328601136f
followed by bug 1199573, 1199878 and 1199879
Flags: needinfo?(jyavenard)
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•9 years ago
|
||
bug 1195073 is missing in the uplift, and it's one of the most important one.
Comment 11•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Jean-Yves Avenard [:jya] from comment #10)
> bug 1195073 is missing in the uplift, and it's one of the most important one.
yeah seems it causing conflicts that need to be solved first.
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•9 years ago
|
||
pushed it as part of
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/pushloghtml?changeset=7437f28133fc
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•