Do we even want to error early here? This isn't exactly fatal to reading
the image it is a only nuisance. It becomes crucial only when we are at
the point of reading all the tiles themselves.
Two tests are disabled, both related to tiles, since they do not follow
the fully released spec themselves but incidentally decode with libtiff
anyways. The two images (`cramps-tile.tif`, `quad-tile.tif`) are tiled
layout which libtiff detects by the presence of TileWidth/TileHeight
tags. We would detect that by chunks encoded via TileOffsets and
TileByteLengths tags. However the images encoded their chunk data into
the StripOffsets tag; additionally they contain a RowsPerStrip value
anyways.
Tests disabled as this is to be resolved in a separate issue (#338) with
a decision on treatment of this situation (strictness setting or copying
libtiff, also error late for mismatched lengths).
This complements the entry API of the encoder with the byte slice based
method. Note we don't provide it for writing raw data, here a
`std::io::Write` would be more appropriate and we should not attempt to
make it `write_all`, nor compress. You'd get all the benefits of the
other API through `[u8]: TiffValue` since that interface is otherwise
type agnostic and `u8` specifically is endian agnostic.
We have not released this yet, let's align these names before it is too
late. The decoder adopted the `_buf` suffix and I find it more
convincing than the more generic `_value` (that also confusingly shares
it with `TiffValue`).
Implement the encoder's `TiffValue` trait for the tags commonly defined
and represented as separate types in our own code. We don't tie the
tag for an entry of these to the value type (yet). This lets us keep the
trait exactly as-is and we avoid unnecessary churn. We can always add a
separate trait on top.
Seems they were introduced with BigTiff but since the enumeration of the
decoder had no obligation of introducing discriminant values the list
was not cross-referenced to libtiff. Hence, some rational types exist
with no basis in decoding.
We have a fundamental choice here: We could add more proxy
implementations for `Vec` and `Box` to follow `&'_ T`, for some types
that indirections is clear. Vec and arrays are also both very natural
ways of expressing a repeated value. However, passing an allocated value
to the interface forces us to drop it inside. We might be able to
utilize the allocation for an in-place byteswap in a future increment
but not with the current design.
So, overall, I think that inherently `Drop`-y types should be avoided in
these implementations. Instead, we can use the amazing diagnostic tools
in the compiler to just help the users navigate the type system. We can
still provide the impl for arrays.
For context, see: https://users.rust-lang.org/t/what-type-is-u16/137395
Now they see:
|
38 | .write_tag(tiff::tags::Tag::GeoKeyDirectoryTag, &geokey);
| ^^^^^^ the trait `TiffValue` is not implemented for `&Vec<u16>`
|
= note: the trait is implemented for primitive types (`u8`, `i16`, `f32`, etc.)
= note: the trait is implemented for shared references to values
= note: the trait is implemented for slices, pass them by reference (e.g. `&[u8]`)
= note: the trait is implemented for arrays if it is implemented for a slice
= note: values in a `Vec` or `Box` should be dereferenced, e.g. `&vec[..]`
= help: the following other types implement trait `TiffValue`:
Previously the compiler would both strip the `&` in its first message
(due to our forwarding impl) and not list any way of getting a
reference-to-slice.
Aurelia Molzer