Fix/audioencoder fix #7
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Also changed all Dictionary calls from .Add() to .TryAdd() Either of these fixes would have prevented the error but it doesn't hurt to have both.
|
Thanks for the help! It looks good so I'll take this PR. I'll also look into the issue with GH actions workflow when I got the time. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Up to you if you want to take this PR as is or if you want me to modify a9632c1
I only tested changing
.Add()to.TryAdd()on the 'acc0' audio encoder because I was getting an errorAn item with the same key has already been added. Key: aac0but line 206
ReleaseEncoders();should be enough to fix the issue. If you'd rather keep the.Add()calls let me know and I'll revert those.As for the github actions workflow you made, I fixed a bug if the nightly tag task can't find a commit. I also had to make a dummy release on my fork because otherwise the publish delta artifact step was failing. It'd be nice if the workflow could handle a fork that doesn't have access to previous releases.