Feel free to change the log level of cd-info messages as you think appropriate. If down the line it turns out to cause problems, we'll find out and adjust accordingly then. ᐧ
On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 12:47 PM Thomas Schmitt <scdbac...@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi, > > > Merged in now. Thanks. > > I will next try to get my test tested ... "make check" ? > > > > Would a --versose or --log-level option on the cd-info command work? > > A more vorbose documentation of its option "-d" would suffice. > Finally debugging level 4 made the INFO message visible. > > > But in what situation does it make sense to reject the .CUE file and > telling the reason as INFO, whereas WARN is used when the .CUE file was > accepted and a tolerable problem gets reported ? > > There is a difference between the two message outputs > > INFO: Track number out of range 1 to 99, got 00 > > which is followed by premature program end, and > > ++ WARN: Track number out of sequence. Expected 2, got 5 > > after which the program goes on, giving the track the number 2. > > Both come from cdio_log(log_level) called in the same function > parse_cuefile(). But they get emitted with log_level 2 and 3, respectively. > > This is because the checking for .CUE file uses a different log_level > than the reading of the .CUE file. The warning gets emitted only if > the .CUE file data shall be remembered. In this case the first function > parameter "cd" is not NULL. > parse_cuefile() makes a difference in log levels, depending on "cd": > > cdio_log_level_t log_level = (NULL == cd) ? CDIO_LOG_INFO : > CDIO_LOG_WARN; > > cdio_is_cuefile() calls for checking > > if (parse_cuefile(NULL, psz_cue_name)) > > _init_bincue() calls for reading > > if ( !parse_cuefile(p_env, p_env->psz_cue_name) ) return false; > > At least for the purpose of track number sanity, this difference in > log_level is inappropriate. > > > Have a nice day :) > > Thomas > > >
