Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix tsdelay and troff #367

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Feb 7, 2024
Merged

Conversation

lo-simon
Copy link
Contributor

@lo-simon lo-simon commented Feb 1, 2024

SMPTE ST 2110-10:2022: TSDELAY shall be a positive number or zero
See SMPTE ST 2110-10:2022 Professional Media over Managed IP Networks: System Timing and Definitions, Annex B SDP Example (Informative)

SMPTE ST 2110-21:2022: TROFF shall be a positive number or zero
See SMPTE ST 2110-21:2022 Professional Media over Managed IP Networks: Traffic Shaping and Delivery Timing for Video, Section 6.2 Virtual Receiver Buffer Packet Read Schedule (PRS) Parameters

@@ -600,11 +576,11 @@ BST_TEST_CASE(testSdpParametersVideoRaw)
{ U("PM"), U("2110BPM") },
{ U("SSN"), U("ST2110-20:2022") },
{ U("TP"), U("2110TPW") },
{ U("TROFF"), U("37") },
{ U("TROFF"), U("0") },
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not sure if we should have these zeros as a separate test case?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will add new test for zero troff and tsdelay

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added test for zero troff and tsdelay

@@ -622,20 +598,20 @@ BST_TEST_CASE(testSdpParametersVideoRaw)
sdp::packing_modes::block,
sdp::smpte_standard_numbers::ST2110_20_2022,
sdp::type_parameters::type_W,
37,
uint32_t(0),
Copy link
Contributor

@garethsb garethsb Feb 5, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Out of interest, does a bare 0 work? Or 0U? Bare 37 or 82 used to work...

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ubuntu 14.04 issue again GCC 4.8.4 compile error, when using bare 0 for the bst::optional parameters. Maybe 0U will work.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes 0U does work

lo-simon and others added 2 commits February 6, 2024 14:15
Co-authored-by: Gareth Sylvester-Bradley <31761158+garethsb@users.noreply.github.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@garethsb garethsb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@jonathan-r-thorpe jonathan-r-thorpe merged commit b2c385f into sony:master Feb 7, 2024
11 checks passed
@jonathan-r-thorpe jonathan-r-thorpe deleted the fix_tsdelay_troff branch February 7, 2024 17:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants