>
> 2.  There are about 15 files that still have trailing whitespace in a
> field (yes, I see the `string-trim-right` in the code and do not
> understand).  I attach a sample.


Sorry, I am an idiot: I am testing emms-info-native--decode-info-fields and
you don't trim until emms-info-native.  Sorry to waste yr time.

---Fran



On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 at 19:14, Fran Burstall (Gmail) <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Just tried the new version and it works very well except:
>
> 1. Just one file returns nil: it has a gigantic (4.8MB) id3v2.3 tag which
> I can send if you want.  Probably I should just accept defeat on this one!
> 2.  There are about 15 files that still have trailing whitespace in a
> field (yes, I see the `string-trim-right` in the code and do not
> understand).  I attach a sample.
> 3. I have 40 files where the date is truncated: emms-info-taglib gives
> 2017-10-13 while emms-info-native just gives 2017.  Again I attach a sample.
>
> ---Fran
>
>
>
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 at 18:20, Petteri Hintsanen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I just pushed a new revision without emms-info-native--max-peek-size
>> checks.  It still does a couple of other checks, but you shouldn’t see
>> excessive size errors anymore.
>>
>> > My personal take is that trimming the whitespace is a good idea, if only
>> > because other info sources do it.
>>
>> I added trailing whitespace trimming to all info-fields, including
>> Vorbis comments.  They are text anyway.
>>
>> > and similarly for emms-info-taglib.  The native took 200 seconds and
>> taglib
>> > 300 for the 14000 or so files!  Looks like not shelling out 14000 times
>> > trumps the speed of C++ (at least on my setup where I suspect a lot of
>> the
>> > time is spent reading the mp3's from the ntfs filesystem they live on).
>>
>> That’s true, shelling incurs a heavy overhead.
>>
>> I have compiled taglib shim as Emacs module so that it doesn’t need to
>> do any execs.  It is, depending on caching conditions (I suppose), about
>> 2-10x faster than emms-info-native.
>>
>> Petteri
>>
>

Reply via email to