Indeed — this change set is kind of sad.
Because I still admire the design of the GAVL library,
and would love to use it for processing of raw video.
However, up to now, we never got to the point of actually
doing so. For the future, I am not sure if there remains
room to rely on lib-GAVL, since FFmpeg roughly covers
a similar ground (and a lot beyond that). And providing
a plug-in for FFmpeg is unavoidable, practically speaking.
So I still retain the nominal dependency on lib-GAVL
in the Build system (since it is still packaged in Debian).
But it is pointless to rely on this library just for an
external type-def `gavl_time_t`. We owe much to this
inspiration, but it can be expected that we'll wrap
these raw time-values into a dedicated marker type
soon, and we certainly won't be exposing any C-style
interface for time calculations in future, since
we do not want anyone to side-step the Lumiera
time handling framework in favour of working
„just with plain numbers“
NOTE: lib-GAVL hompage has moved to Github:
https://github.com/bplaum/gavl
This involves some quite tricky changes in the way types are composed to form an iterator-pipeline.
Some wrappers are added as adaptors or for additional safety-checks, and to provide a builder-API.
Unfortunately, when building a new `IterExplorer` iterator pipeline from an existing pipeline naively,
composing all those types will add several unecessary intermediary wrapper-layers.
Worse even, the handling of `BaseAdapter` prevents the new tuple-zipping iterator
actually to pass-through any `expandChildren()` call.
These issues are a consequence of using templated types, instead of fixed types with an interface;
we can not just determine if some wrapper is present — unless the wrapper itself ''helps by exposing a tag.''
Even while I must admit that the whole packaging and adaptation machinery of `IterExplorer`
looks dangerously complex already, using dedicated type tags for this single purpose
seems like a tenable soulution.
* Lumiera source code always was copyrighted by individual contributors
* there is no entity "Lumiera.org" which holds any copyrights
* Lumiera source code is provided under the GPL Version 2+
== Explanations ==
Lumiera as a whole is distributed under Copyleft, GNU General Public License Version 2 or above.
For this to become legally effective, the ''File COPYING in the root directory is sufficient.''
The licensing header in each file is not strictly necessary, yet considered good practice;
attaching a licence notice increases the likeliness that this information is retained
in case someone extracts individual code files. However, it is not by the presence of some
text, that legally binding licensing terms become effective; rather the fact matters that a
given piece of code was provably copyrighted and published under a license. Even reformatting
the code, renaming some variables or deleting parts of the code will not alter this legal
situation, but rather creates a derivative work, which is likewise covered by the GPL!
The most relevant information in the file header is the notice regarding the
time of the first individual copyright claim. By virtue of this initial copyright,
the first author is entitled to choose the terms of licensing. All further
modifications are permitted and covered by the License. The specific wording
or format of the copyright header is not legally relevant, as long as the
intention to publish under the GPL remains clear. The extended wording was
based on a recommendation by the FSF. It can be shortened, because the full terms
of the license are provided alongside the distribution, in the file COPYING.
* most usages are drop-in replacements
* occasionally the other convenience functions can be used
* verify call-paths from core code to identify usages
* ensure reseeding for all tests involving some kind of randomness...
__Note__: some tests were not yet converted,
since their usage of randomness is actually not thread-safe.
This problem existed previously, since also `rand()` is not thread safe,
albeit in most cases it is possible to ignore this problem, as
''garbled internal state'' is also somehow „random“
The second design from 2017, based on a pipeline builder,
is now renamed `TreeExplorer` ⟼ `IterExplorer` and uses
the memorable entrance point `lib::explore(<seq>)`
✔
Note: changing behaviour of TimeSpan to possibly flip start and end,
and also to use Offset as Offset and then re-orient,
since this seems the least surprising behaviour.
These changes carry over into changed default and limiting
on ZoomWindow constructor and various mutators, and most
notably shifting the time span always into allowed domain.
...the implementation was way too naive; in some cases we could go
into an infinite loop. In the end, using Newton approximation was not
necessary (and thus there is no loop anymore), but it helped me get
at a much better solution with very small error margin on average case.
All these corner cases are obviously "academic" to some degree,
but it turns out there is no clear-cut point where you'd be able
just so set a limit and be sure that fractional integer arithmetic
works flawless in all cases.
Thus the choice is
- give up (fractional) integers and work with floats and have to
deal with error accumulation
- or do something as chosen here, namely add a boundary zone, where
fractional integer arithmetic can be kept under control, while admitting
small errors, and in turn get the absolutely precise integers in all
everyday standard cases
The value used previously was too conservative, and prevented ZommWindow
from zooming out to the complete Time domain. This was due to missing the
Time::SCALE denominator, which increaded the limit by factor 1e6
In fact the code is able to handle even this extremely reduced limit,
but doing so seems over the top, since now detox() kicks in on several
calculations, leading to rather coarse grained errors.
Thus I decided to use a compromise: lower the limit only by factor 1000;
with typical screen pixel widths, we can reach the full time domain,
while most scaling and zoom calculations can be performed precisely,
without detox() kicking in. Obviously this change requires adjusting
a lot of the test case expectations, since we can now zoom out maximally.
As it turns out, the calculation path initially choosen for the mutateScale(Rat)
was needlessly indirect, and also duplicated several of the safeguards,
meanwhile implemented way better in conformWindowToMetric(Rat)
Thus, instead of relatively re-scaling the window, now we just
limit the given zoomFactor and pass it to conformWindowToMetric()
There is a built-in limitation, which now is even
lowered to 100000 pixels horizontally.
With the techniques introduced in this changeset, it seems possible
to support more -- yet this would be a case of unnecessary genricity;
handling such large numbers will drive more computations into the
danger zone, and doing so incurs cost in terms of testing and debugging.
Placing that into context, contemporary displays are not even 4K on
average, and it does not look likely even for cinema display to go
way beyond 8k -- so yes, I want display hardware with 100000 pixels!!
The key takeaway of this changeset:
- can calculate px = trunc(zoomFactor * duration) step wise,
even when the direct calculation would lead to wrap-around
- can safely adjust and fix the zoomFactor using Newton approximation
...even zooming out to span the complete time domain (~19000 years).
But only under the condition that the display window is sufficiently
large in terms of pixels, so we can handle the computation without
glitches.
This should not be a relevant limitation in practice, since a window
size of some 100 pixels is enough to handle Duration::MAX. Needless to add
that it's hard to imagine a media timeline of such tremendous size...
building on these Library changes, plus the safe-add function
developed some days ago, it is now possible to mark a large displacement
as `time::Offset`, and apply this to yield any valid time position,
even extreme negative values
...building on these Library changes, plus the safe-add function
developed some days ago, it is now possible to mark a large displacement
as `time::Offset`, and apply this to yield any valid time position,
even extreme negative values
This is a deep refactoring to allow to represent the distance
between all valid time points as a time::Offset or time::Duration.
By design this is possible, since Time::MAX was defined as 1/30 of
the maximum value technically representable as int64_t. However,
introducing a different limiter for offsets and durations turns
out difficult, due to the inconsistencies in the exiting hierarchy
of temporal entities. Which in turn seems to stem from the unfortunate
decision to make time entities immutable, see #1261
Since the limiter is hard wired into the `time::TimeValue` constructor,
we are forced to create a "backdoor" of sorts, to pass up values
with different limiting from child classes. This would not be so
much of a problem if calculations weren't forced to go through `TimeVar`,
which does not distinguish between time points and time durations.
This solution rearranges all checks to be performed now by time::Offset,
while time::Duration will only take the absolute value at construction,
based on the fact that there is no valid construction path to yield
a duration which does not go through an offset first.
Later, when we're ready to sort out the implementation base of time values
(see #1258), this design issue should be revisited
- either we'll allow derived classes explicitly to invoke the limiter functions
- or we may be able to have an automatic conversion path from clearly
marked base implementation types, in which case we wouldn't use the
buildRaw_() and _raw() "backdoor" functions any more...
While the calculation was already basically under control, I just was not content
with the achieved numeric precision -- and the fact that the test case in fact
misses the bar, making it difficult do demonstrate that the calculation
is not derailed. I just had the gut feeling that it must be somehow possible
to achieve an absolute error level, not just a relative error level of 1e-6
Thus I reworked this part into a generic helper function, see #1262
The end result is:
* partial failure. we can only ''guarantee'' the relative error margin of 1e-6
* but in most cases not out to the most extreme numbers, the sophisticated
solution achieves much better results way below the absolute error level of 1µ-Tick
Thus with using rational numbers, we have now a solution that is absolutely precise
in the regular case, and gradually introduces errors at the domain bound
but with an guaranteed relative error margin of 1e-6 (== Time::SCALE)
...in a similar vein as done for the product calculation.
In this case, we need to check the dimensions carefully and pick
the best calculation path, but as long as the overall result can
be represented, it should be possible to carry out the calculation
with fractional values, albeit introducing a small error.
As a follow-up, I have now also refactored the re-quantisation
functions, to be usable for general requantisation to another grid,
and I used these to replace the *naive* implementation of the
conversion FSecs -> µ-Grid, which caused a lot of integer-wrap-around
However, while the test now works basically without glitch or wrap,
the window position is still numerically of by 1e-6, which becomes
quite noticeably here due to the large overall span used for the test.
...using a requantisation trick to cancel out some factors in the
product of two rational numbers, allowing to calculate the product
without actual multiplication of (dangerously large) numbers.
with these additional safeguards, the anchorWindowAtPosition()
succeeds without Integer-wrap, but the result is not fully correct
(some further calculation error hidden somewhere??)
Especially rational numbers with large denominator can be insidious,
since they might cause numeric overflow on seemingly harmless operations,
like adding a small number.
A solution might be to *requantise* the number into a different,
way smaller denominator. Obviously this is a lossy operation;
yet a small and controlled numeric error is always better than
an uncontrolled numeric wrap-around.
- protection against negative numbers seems adequate
- a possible concern are handling of very large time spans
- definitively have to guard against "poisonous" fractions
(e.g. n / INT_MAX)
- some test definitions were simply numerically wrong
- changed some aspects of the specified behaviour, to be more consistent
+ scrolling is more liberal and always allows to extend canvas
+ setting window to a given duration expands around anchor point
Rearrange the internal mutator functions to follow a common scheme,
so that most of the setters can be implemented by simple forwarding.
Move the change-listener triggering up into the actual setters.
This makes further test cases pass
- verify_setup
- verify_calibration
...implying that the pixel width is now retained
and basic behaviour matches expectations
Extensive tests with corner cases soon highlighted this problem
inherent to integer calculations with fractional numbers: it is
possible to derail the calculation by numeric overflow with values
not excessively large, but using large numbers as denominator.
This problem is typically triggered by addition and subtraction,
where you'd naively not expect any problems.
Thus changed the approach in the normalisation function, relying
on an explicitly coded test rather, and performing the adjustment
only after conversion back to simple integral micro-tick scale.
Getting all those requirements translated into code turns out to be a challenging task;
and the usual ascent to handle such a situation is to define **Invariants**
in conjunction with a normalisation scheme; each manipulation will then be
translated into invocation of one of the three fundamental mutators,
and these in turn always lead into the common normalisation sequence.
__Invariants__
- oriented and non-empty windows
- never alter given pxWidth
- zoom metric factor < max zoom
- visibleWindow ⊂ Canvas
Writing this specification unveiled a limitation of our internal
time base implementation, which is a 64bit microsecond grid.
As it turns out, any grid based time representation will always
be not precise enough to handle some relevant time specifications,
which are defined by a divisor. Most notably this affects the precise
display of frame duration in the GUI, and even more relevant,
the sample accurate editing of sound in the timeline.
Thus I decided to perform the internal computation in ZoomWindow
as rational numbers, based on boost::rational
Note: implementation stubbed only, test fails
This ZoomWindow_test highlights again the question about the intended usage
of the Lumiera time entities. In which way do we want to perform time calculations,
and under which circumstances is it adequate to perform arithmetic on
raw time values?
These questions made me think about rather far reaching concerns regarding
subsidiarity and implicit or explicit usage context. Basically I could
reconfirm the design choices taken some years ago -- while I must admit
that the project is headed towards a way larger scale and more loose
coupling of the parts, than I could imagine several years ago, at the
time when the design started...
As a side note: we can not avoid that some knowledge about the time implementation
leaks out from the support lib; time codes themselves are tightly coupled
to the usage scenario within the session and can not be used as means
for implementing UI concerns. And the more generic time frameworks,
like std::chrono (as much as it is desirable to have some integration here)
will not be of any help for most of our specific usage patterns.
The reason is, for film editing we do not have a global time scale,
rather the truth is when the film starts....
implement the first test case: nudge the zoom factor
⟹ scale factor doubled
⟹ visible window reduced to half size
⟹ visible window placed in the middle of the overall range
this allows to avoid multi-step indirection
when translating mouse dragging pixel coordinates
into a time offset for the dragged clip widget.
Moreover this also improves the design,
since the handling of canvas metric is pretty much
a self contained, separate concern
GTK doesn't expose a first-class API for this,
since -- by design -- the extension of a widget is negotiated.
Thus I'm looking for some kind of workaround for our specific use-case,
where a clip widget must be rendered with a well defined horizontal size,
corresponding to its length.
Thus far, we're only able to increase the size of the Button widget
used as placeholder, but we can not forcibly shrink that button,
probably because the embedded Gtk::Lable requires additional extension.
Partially as a leftover from the way more ambitious initial design,
we ended up with CanvasHook as an elaboration/specialisation of the
ViewHook abstraction. However, as it stands, this design is tilted,
since CanvasHook is not just an elaboration, but rather a variation
of the same basic idea.
And this is now more like a building pattern and less of a generic
framework, it seems adequate to separate these two variations completely,
even if this incurs a small amount of code duplication.
Actually this refactoring is necessary to resolve a bug, where
we ended up with the same Clip widgets attached two times to the
same Canvas control, one time through the ViewHook baseclass,
and a second time by the ctor of the "derived" CanvasHook
...and the result was very much worth the effort,
leading to more focused and cleaner code.
- all the concerns of moving widgets and translating coordinates
are now confined to the second abstraction layer (CanvasHook)
- while the ViewHook now deals exclusively with attachment, detachment
and reordering of attachment sequence
this draft commit reshifts the (meanwhile broken) test code from:
03c358fe86
Now the marker Buttons are injected again, but without any detailed
positioning code at call site. This demonstrates the viability of the
Structure-Change / ViewHook refactoring.
To make this change viable, it was necessary to remove the ViewHooked<>
marker template from the rehook() callback. As it turns out, this was
added rather for logical reasons, and is in fact not necessary in
any of the existing ViewHook implementations (and I don't expect any
other implementations to come)
BUT the actual positioning coordinates are still wrong (which seems
to re related to other conceptual problems in coordinate offset handling)
now the lifecycle of widget and hook are tightly interwoven.
Indeed the test uncovered a situation where a call into the
already destroyed Canvas might halt the application.
...basically it occurred to me that in practice we will never have to deal
with isolated ViewHooks, rather with widgets-combinded-with-a-hook.
So the idea is to combine both into a template ViewHooked<W>
basically this attempts to work around an "impedance mismatch" caused by relying on Lumiera's Diff framework.
Applying a diff might alter the structural order of components, without those componets
being aware of the change. If especially those components are attached into some
UI layout, or otherwise delegate to display widgets, we need a dedicated mechanism
to reestablish those display elements in proper order after applying the change.
The typical examples is a sequence of sub-Tracks, which might have been reordert due
to applying rules down in the Steam Layer. The resulting diff will propagate the
new order of sub-Tracks up into the UI, yet now all of the elaborate layout and
space allocation done in the presentation code needs to be adjusted or even
recomputed to accomodate the change.
