After disabling Explicit leader, request always follower mode #11831
Conversation
|
I don't think this is the correct behavior. We had the handling of track end until #11035 |
|
This has nothing to do with end of track and explicit leader. The scenario is that you have picked an explicit leader and you are done with the track. In current 2.4 you have the option to pick a new explicit leader or make the original done track a soft leader. The later is the bug, because there is no usecase for this. This PR picks the best deck as soft leader, which should be the other deck currently playing. |
… Mixxx pick a new Soft leader. This fixes the bug that a stopped or silenced deck can become a Soft leader
|
@JoergAtGithub Can you have another look? |
|
@daschuer I think this is the correct fix -- once the explicit leader is done playing the DJ will want something else useful to be the new leader, and that will probably be some other playing deck. Selecting Follower will trigger the implicit leader selection, and I think that's good behavior |
src/engine/sync/enginesync.cpp
Outdated
| activateFollower(pSyncable); | ||
| // leader mode if this still be best choice | ||
| if (m_pLeaderSyncable == pSyncable) { | ||
| // Avoid that pickLeader() returns pSyncable with SyncMode::LeaderExplicit |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this code feels like a workaround for a bug. Am I right that just calling activateFollower(pSyncable) is not working because that syncable is already explicit leader? I think this code should remain the same and the edge case should be fixed elsewhere
src/engine/sync/synccontrol.cpp
Outdated
| @@ -519,8 +519,6 @@ void SyncControl::slotSyncLeaderEnabledChangeRequest(double state) { | |||
| // Turning off leader goes back to follower mode. | |||
| switch (mode) { | |||
| case SyncMode::LeaderExplicit: | |||
| m_pChannel->getEngineBuffer()->requestSyncMode(SyncMode::LeaderSoft); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wasn't this intentional? I think the explicit leader also enabled scratching both decks in sync. In case you don't want this but you're unhappy with Mixxx automatic selection, the trick was to make a deck explicit leader, then disable the explicit leader to make it soft leader. Does this still work?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah that could be confusing to users, it might pick a different deck. In practice, when implicit leader is active there's no functional difference between decks... but having leader jump around is not great.
I think I agree, we want to keep this the way it was and just focus on the specific bug
|
Should work now as demanded. |
…er unset behaviour
|
It is now working. It was more tricky than expected. Sorry for the rebase. |
|
Because this is a bug-fix I have changed the target to 2.4 |
|
Thank you! |
… and let Mixxx pick a new Soft leader.
This fixes the bug that a stopped or silenced deck can become a Soft leader. #11829