-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
update beatloop size for loops set manually with IN/OUT #12522
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Yeah this is a tough one -- it feels like a lot of risky change so close to release. I feel like our test coverage is pretty good for beatloop size stuff though? In my opinion, given the bugs you are describing, they seem pretty minor and cosmetic. There is some annoyance, but the current experience is not that bad. Whereas, if there are bugs introduced here, we risk breaking loops which is a major feature. My position would be to save this fix for the next patch release. |
You're right, this should go to 2.4.1 |
It is not clear to me why Furthermore, if I do the test steps manually with 2.4 I don't get the expected result:
|
Yes. And no, see #12522 (comment) Can anyone confirm my observation, or does it behave as expected? |
confirmed this is a bad expectation in the test and that we have a bug -- if there is an existing inactive loop, setting an out point just after a beat creates a loop but does not cause a seek into the loop. There is a missing seek-inside-loop check somewhere |
and quoting from #12509 |
This PR is marked as stale because it has been open 90 days with no activity. |
…s is after loop AFTER because while shrinking a loop (move end backwards) playpos might not be inside loop anymore and we'd suddenly loose contact
7437d9a
to
91c8c0a
Compare
Rebased onto main, will do manual test soonish. |
This updates the
beatloop_size
for loops set manually with IN/OUT, which also enablesloop_halve
/_double
.This is on top of #12509, so check only the last two commits.
That was discussed in #1187 and rejected for some reasons (or rather concerns and assumptions IMO).
I disabled the respective tests.
Fixing #10511 in #12509 made the previous inconsistency obvious (#12509 (comment)).
The second commit tries to address the concerns raised in #1187:
When a track with an unusual loop size is ejected, that loop size is kept (now not only for saved loops but also for temp. loops).
If a track with no loop is loaded, beatloop_size is reset to default (4 beats), or, if there's a saved loop, its size is adopted.
What do you think?
(I know it's a bit late for such a change)