Add a new test that creates a given number of layers. Each layer has the same
assets / clips shifted by a different amount in the timeline. Alpha and volume
properties are different for each layer. This test is similar to the mixer
example in:
http://gist.github.com/MathieuDuponchelle/5736992#file-mixit-py
We should be able to add more clips to each layer, but this example test only
tests mixing 1 clip across 4 layers.
Conflicts:
tests/check/ges/integration.c
This second set of seeking tests performs the seeks in a PAUSED
pipeline. After all seeks are successful, the pipeline is resumed so that the
test does not timeout.
Conflicts:
tests/check/ges/integration.c
- Use g_list_remove_link so that ordering of seeks is not mandatory
- use g_slice allocator for SeekInfo structs
- Fix leak in freeing seek list
- Check for NULL seeks at end of test, otherwise fail and free failed seeks
A Seekinfo structure consists of 2 fields:
- position: the position to seek to
- seeking_position: the position to perform the seek from
Seeks can be appended to a global list e.g. from code:
seeks = g_list_append (seeks, new_seek_info (0.2 * GST_SECOND, 0.6 * GST_SECOND));
seeks = g_list_append (seeks, new_seek_info (1.0 * GST_SECOND, 1.2 * GST_SECOND));
seeks = g_list_append (seeks, new_seek_info (1.5 * GST_SECOND, 1.8 * GST_SECOND));
The get_position callback checks the current position and attempts to perform
the corresponding seek with gst_element_seek_simple
Those are test with real media files, they are run separetely from other
unit tests using the make check-integration command (can be done from
the toplevel directory)
Currently we can end up overflowing the start of others child of our
parent, avoid that making sure we can set our start to what was
requested by the user before actually doing it
+ Add a test
Check if an object rthat has already been freed has been destroyed is not safe.
Add a helper function that uses weak reference to check that objects that are expected
to be destroyed when unrefing an object are actually destroyed.
This exact same method will be needed in GESGroup, so we should have the method
in the common parent class.
API:
- ges_clip_edit
+ ges_container_edit
+ GESContainer->edit vmethod
The GNL API changed to go from a model where user could
enable/disable updates in the composition, which leaded to races
in many places, to a model where any positioning change in the
composition is not directly done but 'cached' and then the user
has to commit those changes so they become effective in the media
processing stack.
The new API in GES is pretty similare and is basically copy
pasting this new design.
We still need to see if in some context it would make sense to add
a mode where we would commit any changes ourself at the end of our
operation for basic use cases.
Removed APIs:
ges_timeline_enable_update
ges_timeline_is_updating
ges_track_enable_update
ges_track_is_updating
New APIs:
ges_track_commit
ges_timeline_commit
+ Fix tests (starting using GESTestClip instead of GESCustomClip)
Now the height is not only growing, but can also go down, as the value
is just simply computed
API:
GESContainer::compute_height virtual method
+ Fix tests (we still need a round of modernisation, making use of
assets where it makes sense)
There is no reason to use those method outside of GES, so remove them,
cleaning the API and making it easier for users.
Removed APIs:
-----------
* ges_clip_create_track_element
* ges_clip_create_track_elements
This way we let the possibility to the user to actually do it, but we avoid him to do it
without knowing it is absolutely not recommanded to.
API:
+ ges_uri_clip_asset_request_sync
... Not the other way round.
+ Add and enhance debugging info on the way
The user should not be responsible for removing the GESTrackElements from
GESTracks, instead, removing it from a GESClip should imply removing
it from any GESTrack it is in.
This patch changes sensibly the behaviour when we remove a
GESTrackElement from a GESTrack, not remoing it from the GESClip it is
in. *But*, users should never remove a GESTrackElement from a GESTrack
anyway. The testsuite has been updated to that new behaviour.
+ Fix tests as necessary (Do not use agingtv as it can be "applied" on any TrackType
and is not representative of what happens IRL)
We already had the infrastructure so the user can have the control over where to add
the elements (through the "select-track-for-object" signal). We now make use of that
signal everytime a GESClip is added to a GESTimelineLayer. This make user's life easier,
and object responsability clearer.
