Audacity Bug Summary
••• Introduction •••
••• Keywords •••
    Audacity 3.0.3 development began 19th April 2021

Audacity Bugzilla



Bug 93 - Find Clipping: needs decision on optimal behaviour with regard to when/where created, linking, and label retention if re-run in same track
Find Clipping: needs decision on optimal behaviour with regard to when/where ...
Status: CLOSED NOT-A-BUG
Product: Audacity
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Application Core
1.3.11
Per OS All
: P4 Review
Assigned To: Default Assignee for New Bugs
:
: 94 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2010-01-28 15:32 UTC by James Crook
Modified: 2018-08-20 11:46 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Steps To Reproduce:
???
Release Note:
First Git SHA:
Group: ---
Workaround:
Closed: 2018-08-20 00:00:00


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description James Crook 2010-01-28 15:32:09 UTC
* AP: Create a Label track and call it Clipping, now add chirp track and Find Clipping. All the labels will be added at the above label track even when linking is on. Shouldn't we create a new track named Clipping at the bottom in this case?
    * GA: +1. Rather than add multiple behaviour options maybe we should decide "best behaviour". IMO this is that Find Clipping opens a new "Find Clipping" track if there isn't one already that has been created by that action; extra clipping (or normal) labels can be added to it, but it's disregarded as a linked track.
    * JC: I prefer that 'clipping detected' labels do participate in linking. However if any analysis effects clear out labels before adding new ones then they should always do so without affecting audio....
    * GA: But that exposes the contradiction that removing labels in a normal label track *would* delete the audio. Plus if the clip track is created underneath a linked group, it won't behave as a linked label track anyway. So I came to the conclusion the least confusing solution is that clip track behaves independently of groups.
Comment 1 Gale Andrews 2010-09-09 19:11:49 UTC
*** Bug 94 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 2 Peter Sampson 2017-08-07 08:16:36 UTC
This is surely a design decision that should (if still needed) be on email or Wiki
and should be closed here
Comment 3 James Crook 2018-04-12 07:11:55 UTC
I agree with Peter in Comment #2, this is an invitation to a discussion, and not a bug.  The current design is consistent and does as intended by its designer.