923038 - [Meta][User Story] Record video clip from standard API (OmxEncoder + MP4) for Camera / Camcorder

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(Firefox OS Graveyard :: General, defect)

Description

[Ivan Tsay (:ITsay)]

This is the user story meta bug for media recording v1.3

Comment 1

[Ivan Tsay (:ITsay)]

Provide Encoding support for OmxEncoder + MP4, VP8 + WebM.

Comment 2

[Ivan Tsay (:ITsay)]

Change the title to reflect the correct user stories

Comment 3

[Ivan Tsay (:ITsay)]

(In reply to Ivan Tsay (:ITsay) from comment #1)
> Provide Encoding support for OmxEncoder + MP4, VP8 + WebM.

Update the implementation scope to be on video encoding support for OmxEncoder(audio/video) + MP4. So far we narrow down the scope for b2g only. VP8+WebM is mainly for desktop.

Comment 4

[Jason Smith [:jsmith]]

Per discussion offline - targeted features don't block, so we don't need to continue blocking on this.

Comment 5

[Jason Smith [:jsmith]]

Moved out of scope for 1.3, so pulling from tracker bug.

Comment 6

[Ivan Tsay (:ITsay)]

Reset target milestone since this on is moved to v1.4

Comment 7

[Jean Gong :jgong]

Update whiteboard tag to follow format [ucid:{id}, {release}:p{1,2}, ft:{team-id}]

Comment 8

[Ivan Tsay (:ITsay)]

Update to P2 in whiteboard since this is target feature.

Comment 9

[Ivan Tsay (:ITsay)]

All the dependency bugs are targeted to be finished by the end of sprint 2

Comment 10

[Jason Smith [:jsmith]]

Closing - all dependent eng. bugs are fixed.

Comment 11

[Jason Smith [:jsmith]]

Paul - gUM camera support isn't needed to test this feature (and isn't related actually) - gUM video isn't captured in MP4. You need to use media streams derived from mp4 files.

Comment 12

[Paul Yang [:pyang] (away)]

Hi Jason,
Although it can be tested by media stream instead, it doesn't make any sense if we commit to have video recording without camera enabled.

Comment 13

[Jason Smith [:jsmith]]

(In reply to Paul Yang [: pyang] from comment #12)
> Hi Jason,
> Although it can be tested by media stream instead, it doesn't make any sense
> if we commit to have video recording without camera enabled.

There's a separate intention being tracked here for this user story that's not dependent on camera support. Product should be able to clarify the need.

Comment 14

[Paul Yang [:pyang] (away)]

(In reply to Jason Smith [:jsmith] from comment #13)
> (In reply to Paul Yang [: pyang] from comment #12)
> > Hi Jason,
> > Although it can be tested by media stream instead, it doesn't make any sense
> > if we commit to have video recording without camera enabled.
> 
> There's a separate intention being tracked here for this user story that's
> not dependent on camera support. Product should be able to clarify the need.

Agree that product should clarify.
ni? Marvin

Comment 15

[Marvin Khoo [:Marvin_Khoo]]

agree this verification should not have any dependency.

Comment 16

[Ivan Tsay (:ITsay)]

Assign to EPM for tracking purpose.

Comment 17

[Jason Smith [:jsmith]]

Sadly with the existence of bug 973504, this doesn't achieve a FC signoff, so based on our new FC signoff criteria, this user story is being reopened.

Comment 18

[Ivan Tsay (:ITsay)]

Move to v1.5 due to feature de-scoping in v1.4.

Comment 19

[Ivan Tsay (:ITsay)]

Recover the target milestone field

Comment 20

[Jason Smith [:jsmith]]

(In reply to Ivan Tsay (:ITsay) from comment #18)
> Move to v1.5 due to feature de-scoping in v1.4.

This isn't what we discussed offline. We weren't pulling video recording from 1.4 unless there's a regression risk present in the feature currently, which isn't the case based on the analysis I gave.

Comment 21

[Ivan Tsay (:ITsay)]

(In reply to Jason Smith [:jsmith] from comment #20)
> (In reply to Ivan Tsay (:ITsay) from comment #18)
> > Move to v1.5 due to feature de-scoping in v1.4.
> 
> This isn't what we discussed offline. We weren't pulling video recording
> from 1.4 unless there's a regression risk present in the feature currently,
> which isn't the case based on the analysis I gave.

If we want to claim this feature complete in v1.4, we need the full QA test on this. We cannot say it is completed with code landed only. By the decision made in drivers meeting, for the feature that has been fully landed, we just leave it and turn it off. But it does not mean the QA will put effort to test on it.  Actually I am confused if QA will still cover the test for the landed feature other than DSDS and QC blockers.

Comment 22

[Ivan Tsay (:ITsay)]

If the feature will be tested, We shall keep this one in v1.4 as it is a fully landed feature before de-scoping.

Comment 23

[Jason Smith [:jsmith]]

(In reply to Ivan Tsay (:ITsay) from comment #21)
> (In reply to Jason Smith [:jsmith] from comment #20)
> > (In reply to Ivan Tsay (:ITsay) from comment #18)
> > > Move to v1.5 due to feature de-scoping in v1.4.
> > 
> > This isn't what we discussed offline. We weren't pulling video recording
> > from 1.4 unless there's a regression risk present in the feature currently,
> > which isn't the case based on the analysis I gave.
> 
> If we want to claim this feature complete in v1.4, we need the full QA test
> on this. We cannot say it is completed with code landed only. By the
> decision made in drivers meeting, for the feature that has been fully
> landed, we just leave it and turn it off. But it does not mean the QA will
> put effort to test on it.  Actually I am confused if QA will still cover the
> test for the landed feature other than DSDS and QC blockers.

No, that's not what we decided on the drivers meeting. If the feature has already fully landed & it does not have regression risk to rest of the product (self-contained), then it can stay in the release until proven otherwise. Paul is actively testing this & I'll be assisting, so this is being looked into. However, I don't think the argument presented is compelling to currently argue this out of the release, as we need proof of either severe bugs or regressions to turn off the feature if it's fully landed. This stays in 1.4 as it stands.

Comment 24

[Jason Smith [:jsmith]]

Turns out the issue I saw wasn't related to Video recording, so closing the story out again.