Thanks for your contribution, but the DecryptMP4 func sig has been modified, which will result in a breaking change. You can either keep the original function signature or create a new function.

You are right. I restored the original function signature to avoid the breaking change and added a wrapper on top of it for the new functionnality. Readme now refers to the wrapper.

Please check the CI error: failed to decrypt segment: no senc box in traf

Tests for decrypts work fine for 3 of 4 samples. The audio sample does not pass the test but I am unable to know why. As you created those samples you might get why better than me.

This is what I was talking about. I have no clue, could you take a look ?

my code:

hasSenc, isParsed := traf.ContainsSencBox()
if !hasSenc {
  // if not encrypted, do nothing
  continue
}

mp4ff code:

hasSenc, isParsed := traf.ContainsSencBox()
if !hasSenc {
    return fmt.Errorf("no senc box in traf")
}

I initially implemented a skip instead of returning an error for this because the Spotify sample I used is unencrypted for the first few seconds and encrypted afterward.

I knew you would have better insight than me on that audio sample :)

So to fix it there is to 2 ways :

• Reimplementing the mp4ff code to introduce the continue again
  • I personnaly do not like reimplementing a portion of a code from a library we should rely on, it make stuffs messy and hard to maintain in the future
• Checking/intercepting the error on the high level code to avoid replicating the mp4ff code
  • Unfortunatly the error is not a registered/wrapped error we could check with errors.Is() (which would be the cleanest way to do it).
  • This means we can only check its string representation (which is not a big deal as the error itself is an unwrapped fmt.Errorf): not really "golangish"

Even without the possibility of using Golang errors comparaison, I still prefer the second option. It keeps the duplicated code minimal. But in definitive it is your codebase and the choice should be yours.

I will push my working commit of the second option, tell me if this is ok for you.

⚠️ Please install the to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 24.13793% with 22 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 68.19%. Comparing base (4f85b53) to head (f49c15e).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #26      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   72.37%   68.19%   -4.18%     
==========================================
  Files           5        5              
  Lines         438      327     -111     
==========================================
- Hits          317      223      -94     
+ Misses         68       62       -6     
+ Partials       53       42      -11     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.