[camera_android_camerax] use MediaSettings::fps for image preview, streaming, and video recording #10301
Conversation
6707def to
3404a0b
Compare
|
|
||
| @RunWith(RobolectricTestRunner.class) | ||
| public class ImageAnalysisTest { | ||
| @SuppressWarnings({"unchecked", "rawtypes"}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: where you added this annotation, can you leave a comment as to why this is safe?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"rawtypes"is required because the current version of Mockito (5.19.0) does not yet support the ability to mock construction of generic types. However, I see that it is now supported as of very recently. Should I try to update the Mockito version in the project to 5.20.0?"unchecked"is related to the point above. SinceMockedConstructiondoes not support generic types,mock.setCaptureRequestOptionis forced to use a raw type.
Let me know whether I should try upgrading Mockito, or just leave a comment about it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should add a test to make sure that if the fps media setting is passed, we actually set it as expected. I know these test are a bit daunting to write so let me know if you need help 😅
Just in case you need help getting started: The hardest part is mocking the pigeon calls. There are several other createCamera tests you can copy or modify to handle the mocks, though. But there are some helper methods at the top of the file that can help with that. I think you could end up doing something like
packages/packages/camera/camera_android_camerax/test/android_camera_camerax_test.dart
Lines 4649 to 4662 in 3404a0b
camera.videoCapture) equals your mock object.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've added a unit test in 4abed18. Was this what you had in mind?
| class ImageAnalysisProxyApi extends PigeonApiImageAnalysis { | ||
| static final long CLEAR_FINALIZED_WEAK_REFERENCES_INTERVAL_FOR_IMAGE_ANALYSIS = 1000; | ||
|
|
||
| @OptIn(markerClass = ExperimentalCamera2Interop.class) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This plugin updates [lint-baseline.xml] (https://github.com/flutter/packages/blob/main/packages/camera/camera_android_camerax/android/lint-baseline.xml) to handle this specific warning.
This should be updateable by following https://developer.android.com/studio/write/lint#snapshot in the example app. But this can be updated after getting both LGTMs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just tried to run this (./gradlew lintDebug -Dlint.baselines.continue=true) inside of the camera_android_camerax/example/android directory, but I see that lint-baseline.xml only contains references to src/main/java/io/flutter/plugins/camerax/CameraXLibrary.g.kt.
I also see @OptIn(markerClass = ExperimentalCamera2Interop.class) already used in Camera2CameraControlProxyApi.java and Camera2CameraInfoProxyApi.java
Is this to be expected?
Implements
MediaSettings::fpsincamera_android_cameraxfor image preview, image streaming, and video recording.camera_android_camerax, and uses the existingMediaSettings::fpsinstead of adding parameters toCameraImageStreamOptionsPre-Review Checklist
[shared_preferences]pubspec.yamlwith an appropriate new version according to the pub versioning philosophy, or I have commented below to indicate which version change exemption this PR falls under1.CHANGELOG.mdto add a description of the change, following repository CHANGELOG style, or I have commented below to indicate which CHANGELOG exemption this PR falls under1.///).If you need help, consider asking for advice on the #hackers-new channel on Discord.
Note: The Flutter team is currently trialing the use of Gemini Code Assist for GitHub. Comments from the
gemini-code-assistbot should not be taken as authoritative feedback from the Flutter team. If you find its comments useful you can update your code accordingly, but if you are unsure or disagree with the feedback, please feel free to wait for a Flutter team member's review for guidance on which automated comments should be addressed.Footnotes
Regular contributors who have demonstrated familiarity with the repository guidelines only need to comment if the PR is not auto-exempted by repo tooling. ↩ ↩2 ↩3