Author Topic: FFP verifier...updated screen shots (Read 7239 times)

blu666z · « **on:** January 08, 2005, 08:58:22 PM »

Ok, I've got this working on my PC here but I don't normally program with VB and am having a little problem getting it to work on anybody elses. Just too inexperienced with the setup builder I think. If anybody would like to take a shot at finishing it up, PM me.

-Kevin

Tall Adam · « **Reply #1 on:** January 08, 2005, 09:26:02 PM »

SWEET! ive been wondering why theres no program like that. manual verification is a bitch, and im too lazy

when and where can we get it? +T!

BJ · « **Reply #2 on:** January 08, 2005, 10:05:03 PM »

send it my way kevin...between me and my coworkers...(a vb shop) we can figure it out...

what errors are you getting?

MattD · « **Reply #3 on:** January 09, 2005, 01:54:00 PM »

Kevin and I worked on it a few months back. I seem to recall there being something in the program that pointed to a specific local path (maybe in looking for one of the libraries), but I could never find it again. Razorback, I hope you have more success with it than I did!

blu666z · « **Reply #4 on:** January 11, 2005, 02:31:35 AM »

Made a few minor adjustments. Anybody have any suggestions?

-Kevin

blu666z · « **Reply #5 on:** January 11, 2005, 02:32:56 AM »

And for you conspiracy buffs.....

-Kevin

dhora · « **Reply #6 on:** January 11, 2005, 08:37:16 PM »

lol ^

Great Idea. Definately spread this sucker around once it's finished.

...I'd +T, but I don't have enough posts yet.

Brian Skalinder · « **Reply #7 on:** January 11, 2005, 08:44:47 PM »

Quote from: blu666z on January 11, 2005, 02:31:35 AM

Made a few minor adjustments. Anybody have any suggestions?

Just questions about some nice-to-haves...

ChrisV · « **Reply #8 on:** January 11, 2005, 08:52:26 PM »

Looking good...

Not sure if this is even possible to implement but can the files be clickable to make it so it automatically opens up and verifies the files like an md5 file does? I am guessing not since it is technically a .txt file instead of a .ffp file, right?

Brian Skalinder · « **Reply #9 on:** January 11, 2005, 08:55:10 PM »

Quote from: ChrisV on January 11, 2005, 08:52:26 PM

Not sure if this is even possible to implement but can the files be clickable to make it so it automatically opens up and verifies the files like an md5 file does? I am guessing not since it is technically a .txt file instead of a .ffp file, right?

I bet there's a way to create during installation a right-click pop-up / context menu that allows one to right-click the FFP and then select "Verify FFP" or some such and automatically fire up the software (assuming with the appropriate paramters (dir, FFP file, etc.).

blu666z · « **Reply #10 on:** January 11, 2005, 09:14:28 PM »

Quote from: Brian Skalinder on January 11, 2005, 08:44:47 PM

Quote from: blu666z on January 11, 2005, 02:31:35 AM
Made a few minor adjustments. Anybody have any suggestions?

Just questions about some nice-to-haves...

[1] To what directory does it default to upon opening and/or browsing - Last used? Configurable? Preferably configurable, IMO.

[2] Will it verify subdirectories automatically? For example, if I have a single FFP for my FLAC files, but those files are contained in two different subdirectories, e.g. "d1" and "d2", will it automatically verify against those subdirs, or will it only verify against the specified top-level dir?

[3] Does it include the ability to save the results to a file?

1) I can/will make that configurable.

2) It will currently only verify against the top directory. I could make it search sub but since etree standards are to have all files one in directory, I'm not gonna worry about that for the first release.

3) It does now.

blu666z · « **Reply #11 on:** January 11, 2005, 09:15:56 PM »

Quote from: ChrisV on January 11, 2005, 08:52:26 PM

Looking good...

Not sure if this is even possible to implement but can the files be clickable to make it so it automatically opens up and verifies the files like an md5 file does? I am guessing not since it is technically a .txt file instead of a .ffp file, right?

I'm sure that's possible. However, with VB not being my normal language, I am just feeling my way through this....which explains the slowness. That might be a good thing for future releases.

Keep um' coming!

-Kevin

nic · « **Reply #12 on:** January 11, 2005, 09:26:47 PM »

program looks very nice, but I have to ask, why not just test/verify the ffp in flac frontend?
isnt that what it's there for?

if it was a combo shn/flac prgram similar to xAct I would be all over it.
(sigh, as a non-programmer I can not offer any help other than testing)

good job though!

blu666z · « **Reply #13 on:** January 11, 2005, 09:31:57 PM »

Quote from: luvean on January 11, 2005, 09:26:47 PM

program looks very nice, but I have to ask, why not just test/verify the ffp in flac frontend?
isnt that what it's there for?

if it was a combo shn/flac prgram similar to xAct I would be all over it.
(sigh, as a non-programmer I can not offer any help other than testing)

good job though!

The Test feature in FLAC Frontend does not compare against an external FFP file. Testing will confirm that the audio data contained in the FLAC has not changed compared to the checksum stored in the metdata of the FLAC itself which doesn't mean you have the original audio that the taper distrubted.

ex. I take a FLAC file from you. I decompress to audio and remove one minute from the middle and then recompress. If I run TEST over this new FLAC it will pass but it is not what you sent me. Make sense? The only way to verify FLACs at the moment is to output a fingerprint file and compare that to the fingerprint file supplied by the taper. This program is intended to do that for you....at least I think that's right.

-Kevin

nic · « **Reply #14 on:** January 11, 2005, 09:44:14 PM »

ah, didnt know that flac frontend didnt compare against external ffp.
thanks!

blu666z · « **Reply #15 on:** January 11, 2005, 09:47:23 PM »

I may be wrong though, but I just deleted the FFP file out of a show directory and ran TEST. All files verified...would be hard to do without the FFP file if it is in fact comparing.

-Kevin

blu666z · « **Reply #16 on:** January 12, 2005, 12:29:00 AM »

Brian..would you minf expanding on the printout? Anything you would like other than what is already shown in the results box? Here is what I have so far:

FFP File » F:\SHN-FLAC\htbf2004-07-29-at943.flac16\htbf2004-07-29-at943.ffp.txt
----used to verify----
FLAC Directory » F:\SHN-FLAC\htbf2004-07-29-at943.flac16\

Total Files » 25
Files Verified » 24
Files Failed » 1
Files Not Found » 0
**************************
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d1t01.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d1t02.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d1t03.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d1t04.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d1t05.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d1t06.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d1t07.flac --> FAIL
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d1t08.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d1t09.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d1t10.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d1t11.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d1t12.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d1t13.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d2t01.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d2t02.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d2t03.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d2t04.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d2t05.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d2t06.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d2t07.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d2t08.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d2t09.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d2t10.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d2t11.flac --> VERIFIED
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d2t12.flac --> VERIFIED

Compiled by FFPVerify v0.1 Beta : 1/11/2005 9:28:26 PM

blu666z · « **Reply #17 on:** January 13, 2005, 11:41:06 AM »

OK....saving results to an external file is done. You also have options to specify a default directory and save file name. Gonna look at searching subdirectories but that may be a little more involved. Lastly, you have the option of which reults are shown in the results. ie. You can choose to show or not show "VERIFIED", "FAIL", and "NOT FOUND" independant of each other.

Anything else?

-Kevin

Brian Skalinder · « **Reply #18 on:** January 13, 2005, 01:48:56 PM »

Good stuff! I think as long as the "save the results" feature supports capturing any and all messages output by FLAC, then you've got it all covered!

Quote from: blu666z on January 13, 2005, 11:41:06 AM

OK....saving results to an external file is done. You also have options to specify a default directory and save file name. Gonna look at searching subdirectories but that may be a little more involved. Lastly, you have the option of which reults are shown in the results. ie. You can choose to show or not show "VERIFIED", "FAIL", and "NOT FOUND" independant of each other.

Anything else?

-Kevin

blu666z · « **Reply #19 on:** January 13, 2005, 02:13:19 PM »

At the moment, it will only output the results that you wanted to see in the RESULTS tab. ie. VERIFY, FAIL, and/or NOT FOUND. Do you think all messages should be output to the file or only what you have asked to be shown on the RESULTS tab?

If nobody else has any suggestions, I'll go ahead and test this for another few days and then try to get it distributed. Maybe let you all test it for a while before passing it on to Etree for 'public consumption.'

-Kevin

Brian Skalinder · « **Reply #20 on:** January 13, 2005, 02:27:29 PM »

I guess I'd really like two different features:

[1] An option to display ALL messages in results. If something goes whacky during en/decoding, I want to know precisely what happened, what the message is, so I can seek out a resolution online.

and

[2] The ability to write ALL messages from the results to a file for reference.

Quote from: blu666z on January 13, 2005, 02:13:19 PM

At the moment, it will only output the results that you wanted to see in the RESULTS tab. ie. VERIFY, FAIL, and/or NOT FOUND. Do you think all messages should be output to the file or only what you have asked to be shown on the RESULTS tab?

blu666z · « **Reply #21 on:** January 13, 2005, 02:39:47 PM »

Quote from: Brian Skalinder on January 13, 2005, 02:27:29 PM

I guess I'd really like two different features:

[1] An option to display ALL messages in results. If something goes whacky during en/decoding, I want to know precisely what happened, what the message is, so I can seek out a resolution online.

and

[2] The ability to write ALL messages from the results to a file for reference.

Assuming I understand what you want, this exactly how it is designed to work right now.

On the options tab, there are three checkes boxes.
Show Verified
Show Failed
Show Not Found

ie. If you only have Show Fail checked and all but one FLAC verified fine, the only output in the Results tab would be:
Total Files » 25
Files Verified » 24
Files Failed » 1
Files Not Found » 0
**************************
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d1t07.flac --> FAIL

Currently, the save file only contains what you have selected to be shown on the Results tab. So if you wanted the save file to reflect the status of each file, you would check all three Show checkboxes and rerun the verification. Or....I can change the code to always output the status of each file regardless of what you have asked to be shown in the Results tab. Am I making sense or just rambling?

-Kevin

Brian Skalinder · « **Reply #22 on:** January 13, 2005, 03:37:36 PM »

Kevin,

Makes perfect sense, I like it the way you have it described. I forgot this is simply an FFP verifier! I was thinking of the sometimes funky messages I get in the command-line logs left by FLACFrontEnd while actually en/decoding FLACs.

It sounds like the only potential messages as a result of verification are: VERIFIED, FAILED, and NOT FOUND. In which case you've got it covered - good stuff!

Quote from: blu666z on January 13, 2005, 02:39:47 PM

Quote from: Brian Skalinder on January 13, 2005, 02:27:29 PM
I guess I'd really like two different features:

[1] An option to display ALL messages in results. If something goes whacky during en/decoding, I want to know precisely what happened, what the message is, so I can seek out a resolution online.

and

[2] The ability to write ALL messages from the results to a file for reference.

Assuming I understand what you want, this exactly how it is designed to work right now.

On the options tab, there are three checkes boxes.
Show Verified
Show Failed
Show Not Found

ie. If you only have Show Fail checked and all but one FLAC verified fine, the only output in the Results tab would be:
Total Files » 25
Files Verified » 24
Files Failed » 1
Files Not Found » 0
**************************
htbf2004-07-29-at943-d1t07.flac --> FAIL

Currently, the save file only contains what you have selected to be shown on the Results tab. So if you wanted the save file to reflect the status of each file, you would check all three Show checkboxes and rerun the verification. Or....I can change the code to always output the status of each file regardless of what you have asked to be shown in the Results tab. Am I making sense or just rambling?

-Kevin

Tall Adam · « **Reply #23 on:** January 13, 2005, 03:39:46 PM »

Quote from: Brian Skalinder on January 13, 2005, 03:37:36 PM

Kevin,

Makes perfect sense, I like it the way you have it described. I forgot this is simply an FFP verifier! I was thinking of the sometimes funky messages I get in the command-line logs left by FLACFrontEnd while actually en/decoding FLACs.

kinda off topic but...ever since ive started using wavelab to record and edit i keep getting messages when i encode to flac about "skipping unknown sub-chunk "PAD"" ive gotten this only on wavelab wavs. it doesnt seem to affect anything. is it simply something that wavelab puts in the metadata of its wav files? anyone know?

Brian Skalinder · « **Reply #24 on:** January 13, 2005, 03:51:19 PM »

Quote from: GQJSP on January 13, 2005, 03:39:46 PM

ever since ive started using wavelab to record and edit i keep getting messages when i encode to flac about "skipping unknown sub-chunk "PAD"" ive gotten this only on wavelab wavs. it doesnt seem to affect anything. is it simply something that wavelab puts in the metadata of its wav files? anyone know?

I believe that's correct, yes.

ChrisV · « **Reply #25 on:** January 13, 2005, 09:28:05 PM »

Quote from: GQJSP on January 13, 2005, 03:39:46 PM

kinda off topic but...ever since ive started using wavelab to record and edit i keep getting messages when i encode to flac about "skipping unknown sub-chunk "PAD"" ive gotten this only on wavelab wavs. it doesnt seem to affect anything. is it simply something that wavelab puts in the metadata of its wav files? anyone know?

Yeah, that is an annoying message. What I do is convert the wav to flac and then back to wav again and dump the original wav. Then I'll create my normal md5 file for archiving my edited masters.

blu666z · « **Reply #26 on:** January 14, 2005, 01:05:28 AM »

Here's a shot of the options if anybody needed clarification of earlier discussions.

-Kevin