Wave.py does not always write proper length in header

[jtidman]

BPO	11126
Nosy	@terryjreedy, @serhiy-storchaka
Files	patch.txt: Patch file

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = <Date 2013-09-03.20:49:15.622>
created_at = <Date 2011-02-05.00:00:47.959>
labels = ['invalid', 'type-bug', 'library']
title = 'Wave.py does not always write proper length in header'
updated_at = <Date 2013-09-03.20:49:15.621>
user = 'https://bugs.python.org/jtidman'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2013-09-03.20:49:15.621>
actor = 'serhiy.storchaka'
assignee = 'none'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2013-09-03.20:49:15.622>
closer = 'serhiy.storchaka'
components = ['Library (Lib)']
creation = <Date 2011-02-05.00:00:47.959>
creator = 'jtidman'
dependencies = []
files = ['20682']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 11126
keywords = []
message_count = 4.0
messages = ['127956', '128424', '128474', '192066']
nosy_count = 3.0
nosy_names = ['terry.reedy', 'jtidman', 'serhiy.storchaka']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'not a bug'
stage = 'resolved'
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = 'behavior'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue11126'
versions = ['Python 2.7', 'Python 3.3', 'Python 3.4']

[jtidman]

wave.py does not always honor the sampwidth setting, especially on little endian machines. If sampwidth is not one and big_endian is not set, then datawritten will not be muliplied by sampwidth, causing the header to be incorrect, and the file to appear to contain less data than it chould.

[terryjreedy]

I agree that the _sampwidth multiplier is needed regardless of endianness.

The simplest option would be to pull the _datawritten statement out of the alternation, making the code read

        if self._sampwidth > 1 and big_endian:
            import array
            data = array.array(_array_fmts[self._sampwidth], data)
            data.byteswap()
            data.tofile(self._file)
        else:
            self._file.write(data)
        self._datawritten = self._datawritten + len(data) * self._sampwidth

Note: while _sampwidth is initialized to 0, _ensure_header_written() checks that it is not 0, and it is used elsewhere as a divisor.

The above adds a usually unneeded multiply by 1, but the alternative requires duplication of _file.write and two _datawritten statements

        if self._sampwidth > 1:
            if big_endian:
                import array
                data = array.array(_array_fmts[self._sampwidth], data)
                data.byteswap()
                data.tofile(self._file)
            else: # little_endian
                self._file.write(data)
            self._datawritten = self._datawritten + len(data) * self._sampwidth
        else: # _sampwidth == 1
            self._file.write(data)
            self._datawritten = self._datawritten + len(data)

This module is new to me. Can you think of any way to test this issue, perhaps by writing to StringIO file? This is not a heavily tested module ;-)

In 3.3, the openfp synonym for open could perhaps be deprecated.

[jtidman]

Yep, your solution is better. I can provide some text files (lists of numbers) and two programs, wave2text.py and text2wav.py. These are the programs I wrote that found this issue in the first place. Add a few checks and you could run text2wave.py and then wave2text.py and verify that the results of these two steps match the original text files.

I look forward to working on this module with you. Unfortunately the time frame would have to be sometime in 2011, as I am currently very busy.

[serhiy-storchaka]

I don't see anything wrong in current code. In first alternation data is an array of sampwidth-sized items and the number of written bytes is len(data) * self._sampwidth. In second alternation data is raw bytes object and the number of written bytes is just len(data).

Could you please provide a sample script which exposes the wrong behavior?