LBRYCommunity/types
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 13 Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Add file attributes to metadata #9

New issue
Closed
opened 2017-09-26 23:18:11 +02:00 by tzarebczan · 11 comments
tzarebczan commented 2017-09-26 23:18:11 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Schema related changes for: https://github.com/lbryio/lbry/issues/918

Add the following metadata fields:

  • file - a dictionary with info about the file. this will grow eventually. for now it should have:
    • name - the filename. 255 chars max.
    • size - the size of the original file
    • duration - an integer that represents how many seconds long the file is. only applies to files that have a duration, like audio or video file.

In the future, we may want to add hash (a hash of the original file) to that dictionary as well, but we will leave it out for now.

Internal Use

Acceptance Criteria

Definition of Done

  • Tested against acceptance criteria
  • Tested against the assumptions of the user story
  • The project builds without errors
  • Unit tests are written and passing
  • Tests on devices/browsers listed in the issue have passed
  • QA performed & issues resolved
  • Refactoring completed
  • Any configuration or build changes documented
  • Documentation updated
  • Peer Code Review performed
Schema related changes for: https://github.com/lbryio/lbry/issues/918 Add the following metadata fields: - `file` - a dictionary with info about the file. this will grow eventually. for now it should have: - `name` - the filename. 255 chars max. - `size` - the size of the original file - `duration` - an integer that represents how many seconds long the file is. only applies to files that have a duration, like audio or video file. In the future, we may want to add `hash` (a hash of the original file) to that dictionary as well, but we will leave it out for now. ## Internal Use ### Acceptance Criteria 1. 2. 3. ### Definition of Done - [ ] Tested against acceptance criteria - [ ] Tested against the assumptions of the user story - [ ] The project builds without errors - [ ] Unit tests are written and passing - [ ] Tests on devices/browsers listed in the issue have passed - [ ] QA performed & issues resolved - [ ] Refactoring completed - [ ] Any configuration or build changes documented - [ ] Documentation updated - [ ] Peer Code Review performed
KamilPiekutowski commented 2017-10-07 18:48:32 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

I added the content duration in this pr:
https://github.com/lbryio/lbryschema/pull/24

I added the content duration in this pr: [https://github.com/lbryio/lbryschema/pull/24](url)
tzarebczan commented 2018-02-22 15:18:12 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

@KamilPiekutowski want to take another stab at this?

@KamilPiekutowski want to take another stab at this?
KamilPiekutowski commented 2018-02-22 15:47:22 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

@tzarebczan yes.

@tzarebczan yes.
👍 2
tzarebczan commented 2018-04-18 18:20:35 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

@KamilPiekutowski Please let us know if there's any particular questions you have about this ticket and the other one for release date.

@KamilPiekutowski Please let us know if there's any particular questions you have about this ticket and the other one for release date.
alyssaoc commented 2018-11-19 20:27:50 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

after signatures

after signatures
jackrobison commented 2019-01-21 16:17:47 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Another to add is contentHash - this is the hash of the unencrypted file that the stream assembles into.

Another to add is `contentHash` - this is the hash of the unencrypted file that the stream assembles into.
tzarebczan commented 2019-02-01 17:22:09 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

@lyoshenka, @jackrobison and I ran into the real reason we need the contentHash...so one could update a claim without having the file download (metadata only) and reconstruct the file list entry with the contentHash for consistency.

@lyoshenka, @jackrobison and I ran into the real reason we need the contentHash...so one could update a claim without having the file download (metadata only) and reconstruct the file list entry with the contentHash for consistency.
lyoshenka commented 2019-02-01 21:13:55 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

reconstruct the file list entry

not sure i understand this. what do you mean?

> reconstruct the file list entry not sure i understand this. what do you mean?
tzarebczan commented 2019-02-01 23:31:09 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Jack originally wanted to re-create the file_list entry for the edited file in stopped/incomplete mode, but then we decided not to do that. @jackrobison do we still want this?

Jack originally wanted to re-create the file_list entry for the edited file in stopped/incomplete mode, but then we decided not to do that. @jackrobison do we still want this?
tzarebczan commented 2019-02-15 17:29:53 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

@jackrobison should we be adding file hash in this go around? What does it help with again?

@jackrobison should we be adding file hash in this go around? What does it help with again?
tzarebczan commented 2019-02-15 18:02:29 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Nevermind, hash is in the PR.

Nevermind, hash is in the PR.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag specified
Branches Tags
master
add-hub-proto
comments
support_proto
channel_field_rename
claim_list_etc
update_go_files
minor_changes
proto3
proto3_continue
release_time
No results found.
Labels
Clear labels   
area: devops

   
area: discovery

   
area: docs

   
area: livestream

   
area: proposal

Work is part of a proposal

  
consider soon

Discuss this issue at the next planning meeting, then remove this label

  
Epic

   
good first issue

   
hacktoberfest

Welcome to Hacktoberfest

  
help wanted

   
icebox

Long-term storage

  
level: 1

No knowledge of the existing code required

  
level: 2

Some knowledge of the existing code is recommended

  
level: 3

Significant knowledge of the existing code is recommended

  
level: 4

Intimate knowledge of the existing code is recommended

  
needs: exploration

Solution unclear, needs research

  
needs: grooming

Issue needs to be groomed before work can start

  
needs: priority

Priority level needs to be defined

  
needs: repro

Issue needs step-by-step instructions on how to reproduce in latest code

  
needs: tech design

Needs technical design signoff before implementation can begin

  
on hold

Temporarily paused

  
priority: blocker

Issue is blocking release, do ASAP

  
priority: high

Work needs to be moved into sprint ASAP

  
priority: low

Work should be done but can stay in the backlog for now

  
priority: medium

Work needs to be done within 2-3 sprints

  
resilience

   
Tom's Wishlist

   
type: bug

Existing functionality is wrong or broken

  
type: discussion

A conversation. No specific changes requested

  
type: improvement

Existing (or partially existing) functionality needs to be changed

  
type: new feature

New functionality that does not exist yet

  
type: refactor

Minimal user-visible changes, but significant internal work

  
type: task

Either work that's not related to the code, or a small chore that does not fit into other categories

  
type: testing

Solution needs additional user testing

  
unplanned

Work that was not planned into the spirnt, took priority over planned work

No labels
area: devops
area: discovery
area: docs
area: livestream
area: proposal
consider soon
Epic
good first issue
hacktoberfest
help wanted
icebox
level: 1
level: 2
level: 3
level: 4
needs: exploration
needs: grooming
needs: priority
needs: repro
needs: tech design
on hold
priority: blocker
priority: high
priority: low
priority: medium
resilience
Tom's Wishlist
type: bug
type: discussion
type: improvement
type: new feature
type: refactor
type: task
type: testing
unplanned
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: LBRYCommunity/types#9
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?