Skip to main content
Topic: foo_discogs (Read 826489 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2700
Hi, I am trying to get your plugin working on my system. I am running Windows Vista. I have installed the TLS 1.2 patches and enabled them on my system, but I still get authentication errors. However, I can successfully authenticate when manually sending OAuth commands using curl. I took some packet captures and from what I can find, even though TLS 1.2 is enabled on my system, Vista does not support the "modern" ciphers needed (as listed here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Server_Side_TLS#Modern_compatibility), which is what is causing the authentication to fail.

From what I understand, curl and other browsers (besides Internet Explorer) use their own crypto libraries and thus are not directly dependent on what the OS provides or supports.

Not being familiar with the foobar plugin architecture, would it be possible to use e.g. libcurl for network communications instead of the built-in Windows libraries?

Also, does the plugin really need to use OAuth Authentication, or would it be possible to use Discogs Authentication? It looks like it wouldn't need the user to generate their own tokens, so the plugin should work right out of the box.

Thanks for any insight!

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2701
Discogs Authentication

From that URL:
Quote
If you do not plan on building an app which others can log into on their behalf,
so it's definitely not for this plugin.

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2702
Discogs Authentication

From that URL:
Quote
If you do not plan on building an app which others can log into on their behalf,
so it's definitely not for this plugin.
Hmm, looking through the configuration and usage documentation at https://bitbucket.org/zoomorph/foo_discogs, I didn't see anything that needed access to a user's account information, since it looks like it's just doing lookups against the general catalog, not against a user's collection. The closest thing I found talked about fetching images, but the Discogs documentation implies it can also be done with Discogs authentication:
The Image resource represents a user-contributed image of a database object, such as Artists or Releases. Image requests require authentication and are subject to rate limiting.

It’s unlikely that you’ll ever have to construct an image URL; images keys on other resources use fully-qualified URLs, including hostname and protocol. To retrieve images, authenticate via OAuth or Discogs Auth and fetch the object that contains the image of interest (e.g., the release, user profile, etc.). The image URL will be in the response using the HTTPS protocol, and requesting that URL should succeed.
Am I missing something?

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2703
I meant to ask before, is their a way of making the plugin detect multi-disc releases using the wrong numbering format?

for example:-

multi-disc releases using 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2, etc, obviously work fine with the plugin, as the numbering format is as per guidelines

However, for example, releases with 1.01, 1.02, 2.01, 2.02, etc, are not recognised as multi-disc releases and are instead counted as 1 through to 40 tracks (if there were 20 tracks on CD1 and 20 tracks on CD2, for example)

Thanks again for the plugin, it's such a godsend!
The plugin uses the standardized track formatting described (somewhat loosely) in the Discogs guidelines. Unfortunately, the Discogs guidelines say that this standardized formatting is less preferred than using whatever is printed on the release (which is not standardized). So in general there's no way for foo_discogs to know exactly how to process the tracklisting. It could definitely be modified to make a smarter guess based on the # of files and different ways the tracklisting could be parsed, but I don't have any time to work on such changes right now.

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2704
Hi, I am trying to get your plugin working on my system. I am running Windows Vista. I have installed the TLS 1.2 patches and enabled them on my system, but I still get authentication errors. However, I can successfully authenticate when manually sending OAuth commands using curl. I took some packet captures and from what I can find, even though TLS 1.2 is enabled on my system, Vista does not support the "modern" ciphers needed (as listed here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Server_Side_TLS#Modern_compatibility), which is what is causing the authentication to fail.

From what I understand, curl and other browsers (besides Internet Explorer) use their own crypto libraries and thus are not directly dependent on what the OS provides or supports.

Not being familiar with the foobar plugin architecture, would it be possible to use e.g. libcurl for network communications instead of the built-in Windows libraries?

Also, does the plugin really need to use OAuth Authentication, or would it be possible to use Discogs Authentication? It looks like it wouldn't need the user to generate their own tokens, so the plugin should work right out of the box.

Thanks for any insight!
foo_discogs uses the http library built into foobar2000 which I suspect uses native OS calls. It would be possible to use something else, just a matter of the work to change it over, which could be quite substantial to support an old OS that few people are using.

As for using the token instead of oauth (well, providing an option to use either - I don't think oauth should be removed), yes that would be possible and probably should be done. Again it's just a matter of implementing and that shouldn't be too hard but I have no motivation to do it right now as too busy with other things. :-(

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2705
OK, thanks for the info! If I get the time to dig into the foobar API (not sure how likely that is at the moment though), would you mind if I take a crack at it?

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2706
OK, thanks for the info! If I get the time to dig into the foobar API (not sure how likely that is at the moment though), would you mind if I take a crack at it?
Go for it, it is open source for that purpose. :-) Adding the token as an alternative to oauth would be simplest.

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2707
However, for example, releases with 1.01, 1.02, 2.01, 2.02, etc, are not recognised as multi-disc releases and are instead counted as 1 through to 40 tracks (if there were 20 tracks on CD1 and 20 tracks on CD2, for example)

Thanks again for the plugin, it's such a godsend!
The plugin uses the standardized track formatting described (somewhat loosely) in the Discogs guidelines...but I don't have any time to work on such changes right now.

Your component and maintenance are invaluable. When you do find time once more...  :))

When I scan multi-discs with x.xx format, it only shows the first track per disc and lists the others as +HIDDEN.

e.g : https://www.discogs.com/master/view/233656
[r2086887]
In the future, it would be great if it were possible to expand +XX HIDDEN and apply the data to the files

 

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2708
However, for example, releases with 1.01, 1.02, 2.01, 2.02, etc, are not recognised as multi-disc releases and are instead counted as 1 through to 40 tracks (if there were 20 tracks on CD1 and 20 tracks on CD2, for example)

Thanks again for the plugin, it's such a godsend!
The plugin uses the standardized track formatting described (somewhat loosely) in the Discogs guidelines...but I don't have any time to work on such changes right now.

Your component and maintenance are invaluable. When you do find time once more...  :))

When I scan multi-discs with x.xx format, it only shows the first track per disc and lists the others as +HIDDEN.

e.g : https://www.discogs.com/master/view/233656
[r2086887]
In the future, it would be great if it were possible to expand +XX HIDDEN and apply the data to the files
That's because in the standardized formatting, "x.x" means hidden tracks, "x-x" means multiple tracks on a disc. Unfortunately, if the artwork is written as "x.x" for multiple tracks on a disc then Discogs prefers that, breaking the standardized formatting.

It would be possible to add buttons to expand/collapse hidden tracks to deal with those rare cases, but would not be trivial.

In many cases, older releases on Discogs were entered with "x.x" format but should be changed to "x-x".

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019