chore: revisit YouTube Music track weighing logic #472
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
🐋 🤖 A docker image for this PR has been built! docker pull freyrcli/freyrjs-git:pr-472
What's this?This docker image is a self-contained sandbox that includes all the patches made in this PR. Allowing others to easily use your patches without waiting for it to get merged and released officially. For more context, see https://github.com/miraclx/freyr-js#docker-development. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In cases like
apple_music:track:1208190370where there's only one word in the track name, with all artists squashed into one entry, the odds of weighing the correct track is 50%, which is far under the cut-off of 70%This patch rewrites that logic to stop presupposing either the track has more than one word, or there's more than one artist.
Now, we're embedding the album as well in there, taking the minimum odds of success to 66%, but we undercut by just a bit at 65%.
Issue originally derived from #395 (comment), #419.