[DASH] Get start number from muxer. #818

sr1990 · 2020-08-07T19:59:10Z

This PR will set the start number in representation to the segment index that is sent by muxer.

sr1990 · 2020-08-07T20:00:13Z

Have not run clang-format on all files yet.

kqyang

Thanks. Mostly LGTM with some style nits.

kqyang · 2020-08-13T04:43:25Z

packager/media/chunking/chunking_handler.cc

@@ -144,13 +147,17 @@ Status ChunkingHandler::OnMediaSample(
  return DispatchMediaSample(kStreamIndex, std::move(sample));
 }

-Status ChunkingHandler::EndSegmentIfStarted() const {
+Status ChunkingHandler::EndSegmentIfStarted(bool fromCueEvent) const {


from_cue_event

kqyang · 2020-08-13T04:50:52Z

packager/media/chunking/chunking_handler.cc

+  // If fromCueEvent then current_segment_index_ is already added to the
+  // number of segments before last cue.
+  segment_info->segment_index = ((fromCueEvent) ? 0 : current_segment_index_) +


A simpler way to handle it is to set current_segment_index_ to 0 in line 79.

kqyang · 2020-08-13T04:51:10Z

packager/media/chunking/chunking_handler.cc

+  // If fromCueEvent then current_segment_index_ is already added to the
+  // number of segments before last cue.
+  segment_info->segment_index = ((fromCueEvent) ? 0 : current_segment_index_) +
+                                num_segments_before_last_cue_ - 1;


It should be just num_segments_before_last_cue_ without "-1"

I am subtracting 1 to send the segment index as 0 based. To remove -1, I can move the lines
|108 current_segment_index_ = segment_index;
|109 // Reset subsegment index.
|110 current_subsegment_index_ = 0;
in ChunkingHandler::OnMediaSample after the call to
|112 RETURN_IF_ERROR(EndSegmentIfStarted());

Yes, I think the change you mentioned is needed. current_segment_index_ should also be set to -1 instead of 0 in OnCueEvent.

Here is a simple illustration with segment size of 2.

(| is segment boundary; C is for cue).

_ _ | _ C _ _ | _ _ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Region 1: current_segment_index_ = 0, num_segments_before_last_cue_ = 0 so segment_info->segment_index = 0
Region 2: current_segment_index_ = 1 => num_segments_before_last_cue_ = 2, current_segment_index_=-1 so segment_info->segment_index = 1
Region 3: current_segment_index_ = 0, num_segments_before_last_cue_ = 2 so segment_info->segment_index = 2
Region 4: current_segment_index_ = 1, num_segments_before_last_cue_ = 2 so segment_info->segment_index = 3

If we don't have unit-tests, we should add unit-tests for it.

@kqyang Thanks for the illustration. I have made this change.
Also looks like there is a unit test for this: ChunkingHandlerTest,CueEvent.

kqyang · 2020-08-13T04:53:54Z

packager/media/chunking/text_chunker.cc

@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ Status TextChunker::OnFlushRequest(size_t input_stream_index) {
  // Keep outputting segments until all the samples leave the system. Calling
  // |DispatchSegment| will remove samples over time.
  while (samples_in_current_segment_.size()) {
+    segment_index_++;


Is this needed?

Have removed it.

kqyang · 2020-08-13T04:54:21Z

packager/media/chunking/text_chunker.cc

+  if (((segment_start_ / segment_duration_) + 1) > segment_index_) {
+    segment_index_ = (segment_start_ / segment_duration_) + 1;
+  }
+  info->segment_index = segment_index_ - 1;


We should consider the number of cues too.

I think it can just be:

info->segment_index = segment_start_ / segment_duration_ + num_cues_;

kqyang · 2020-08-13T05:07:57Z

packager/mpd/base/mpd_notifier.h

  /// @return true on success, false otherwise.
  virtual bool NotifyNewSegment(uint32_t container_id,
                                uint64_t start_time,
                                uint64_t duration,
-                                uint64_t size) = 0;
+                                uint64_t size,
+				uint64_t segment_index) = 0;


kqyang · 2020-08-13T05:08:31Z

packager/mpd/base/representation.h

  virtual void AddNewSegment(int64_t start_time,
                             int64_t duration,
-                             uint64_t size);
+                             uint64_t size,
+			     uint64_t segment_index);


kqyang · 2020-08-13T05:08:55Z

packager/mpd/base/representation_unittest.cc

  EXPECT_THAT(representation_->GetXml().get(),
-              XmlNodeEqual(ExpectedXml(expected_s_elements)));
+    XmlNodeEqual(SegmentTimelineTestBase::ExpectedXml(
+                    expected_s_elements, 1372)));


where is 1372 from?

(kStartTime/kDurationSmaller) + 1

kqyang · 2020-08-13T05:09:31Z

packager/mpd/base/simple_mpd_notifier_unittest.cc

@@ -169,6 +169,8 @@ TEST_F(SimpleMpdNotifierTest, NotifyNewSegment) {
  SimpleMpdNotifier notifier(empty_mpd_option_);

  const uint32_t kRepresentationId = 447834u;
+  const uint64_t kSegmentIndex0 = 0u;


I think you can just call it kSegmentIndex

kqyang · 2020-08-13T05:15:22Z

packager/mpd/base/representation.cc

+    if (segment_infos_.empty()) {
+    if (mpd_options_.mpd_params.target_segment_duration > 0) {
+      // Store segment index as 1 based.
+      start_number_ = segment_index + 1; 
+    }
+  }


It seems that segment_index or start_segment_index should be added as a member of SegmentInfo. Then we can remove |start_number_|.

Otherwise the code at line 462 is incorrect.

@kqyang Thanks for the review. Let me try this out. Thinking about how copy constructor changes representation will affect the unit test (RepresentationClone).

@kqyang For representation_unittest.cc::TEST_P(TimeShiftBufferDepthTest, Generic) as the segment duration changes, segment index is 34 instead of 1002 which it would have been because of increasing |start_number_|. How can this test be changed in order to rely on start_segment_index which is stored in SegmentInfo?

@kqyang any thoughts? Am I missing anything here? Do you want to move ahead without this change?

Sorry for the late reply. I think it actually surfaces a problem in the unit-test. I think it is better to have your logic here in the test :).

We can define a member variable in SegmentTemplateTest called: start_segment_index_. It is initialized to start_time/duration in AddSegments if not initialized; increment by 1 in for-loop.

void AddSegments(int64_t start_time, int64_t duration, uint64_t size, int repeat) { ... if (start_segment_index == -1) start_segment_index = start_time / duration; for (int i = 0; i < repeat + 1; ++i) { representation_->AddNewSegment(start_time, duration, size, start_segment_index++); start_time += duration; bandwidth_estimator_.AddBlock( size, static_cast<double>(duration) / kDefaultTimeScale); } }

What do you think?

I have added this change.

sr1990 · 2020-09-15T01:31:39Z

Hi @kqyang, any thoughts on the PR update?

kqyang · 2020-09-15T01:34:36Z

Sorry for the late reply. Quite busy these days. I haven't had a chance to look through it. I'll do it some time this week.

sr1990 · 2020-12-04T04:19:52Z

Ping

ProIcons · 2021-06-15T07:12:54Z

bump

Vinayk93 · 2022-10-03T09:50:38Z

Any Update on this.

cosmin · 2024-02-15T00:35:17Z

replaced by #879

sr1990 changed the title ~~DASH - Get start number from muxer.~~ [DASH] Get start number from muxer. Aug 7, 2020

kqyang reviewed Aug 13, 2020

View reviewed changes

sr1990 force-pushed the omit_segmentTimeline2 branch from d006e81 to bfd88c0 Compare September 4, 2020 05:53

sr1990 added 4 commits September 9, 2020 18:01

DASH - Get start number from muxer.

2873d82

Changes as per comments.

5d87ed6

Unit test changes.

67148b9

Correcting indentation.

17a5eb4

sr1990 force-pushed the omit_segmentTimeline2 branch from 4cb7f60 to 17a5eb4 Compare September 10, 2020 01:23

sr1990 requested a review from kqyang September 10, 2020 01:23

sr1990 mentioned this pull request Oct 9, 2020

Specify segment start number #852

Closed

vish91 mentioned this pull request Jan 5, 2021

Specify Initial Sequence Number #519

Closed

sr1990 mentioned this pull request Jan 9, 2021

feat: get start number from muxer and specify initial sequence number #879

Merged

cosmin closed this Feb 15, 2024

github-actions bot added the status: archived Archived and locked; will not be updated label Apr 15, 2024

github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 15, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[DASH] Get start number from muxer. #818

[DASH] Get start number from muxer. #818

sr1990 commented Aug 7, 2020

sr1990 commented Aug 7, 2020 •

edited

kqyang left a comment

kqyang Aug 13, 2020

kqyang Aug 13, 2020

kqyang Aug 13, 2020

sr1990 Aug 16, 2020

kqyang Aug 27, 2020

sr1990 Sep 4, 2020

kqyang Aug 13, 2020

sr1990 Aug 17, 2020

kqyang Aug 13, 2020

kqyang Aug 13, 2020

kqyang Aug 13, 2020

kqyang Aug 13, 2020

sr1990 Aug 16, 2020

kqyang Aug 13, 2020

kqyang Aug 13, 2020

sr1990 Aug 16, 2020 •

edited

sr1990 Aug 16, 2020 •

edited

sr1990 Aug 20, 2020 •

edited

kqyang Aug 27, 2020 •

edited

sr1990 Sep 4, 2020

sr1990 commented Sep 15, 2020

kqyang commented Sep 15, 2020

sr1990 commented Dec 4, 2020

ProIcons commented Jun 15, 2021

Vinayk93 commented Oct 3, 2022

cosmin commented Feb 15, 2024

[DASH] Get start number from muxer. #818

[DASH] Get start number from muxer. #818

Conversation

sr1990 commented Aug 7, 2020

sr1990 commented Aug 7, 2020 • edited

kqyang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sr1990 Aug 16, 2020 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sr1990 Aug 16, 2020 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sr1990 Aug 20, 2020 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kqyang Aug 27, 2020 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sr1990 commented Sep 15, 2020

kqyang commented Sep 15, 2020

sr1990 commented Dec 4, 2020

ProIcons commented Jun 15, 2021

Vinayk93 commented Oct 3, 2022

cosmin commented Feb 15, 2024

sr1990 commented Aug 7, 2020 •

edited

sr1990 Aug 16, 2020 •

edited

sr1990 Aug 16, 2020 •

edited

sr1990 Aug 20, 2020 •

edited

kqyang Aug 27, 2020 •

edited