dtourolle
ecd6df686c
Build and test / Desktop (Linux) (push) Failing after 54s
Build and test / Layer separation (push) Successful in 22s
Traceability / Requirement traces (push) Failing after 59s
🐳 Android image / Build and push (push) Successful in 12m59s
Build and test / android-image (push) Successful in 13m1s
Build and test / Android (aarch64) (push) Failing after 9m42s
First step of dead pixel removal, and the one that decides whether the rest is worth building: where the map comes from. `rawler` is no help. It knows `OpcodeList1/2/3` exist — it copies them through when *writing* a DNG — but it never decodes them, and the `dng_tags` map it exposes is only ever filled by callers, never by a decoder. So the bytes are read from the IFD directly, which this module was already walking for previews, including the SubIFDs where a DNG keeps its raw IFD. `OpcodeList1` specifically: lists 2 and 3 run after demosaic and after the colour transform, so neither can carry a correction that has to happen on the mosaic. Two opcodes describe defects — `FixBadPixelsList`, which is explicit coordinates plus whole dead rows and columns, and `FixBadPixelsConstant`, which names a sentinel value rather than any coordinates and is left unimplemented until there is a stage to consume it. A half-implementation that guessed at coordinates would be worse than the absence, because it would look like it worked. Two things the tests pin down because both are silent when wrong: a point is stored (row, column) and reading it the other way round lands the correction on the wrong photosite — invisibly, on a square crop — and opcode payloads are big-endian whatever the container's byte order is, so a little-endian TIFF still writes these the other way round. An unknown opcode is stepped over using its declared length rather than abandoning the list, because a camera that corrected its lens as well as its sensor writes both, and losing the map whenever a warp is present would be losing it on most files that have one. Includes `--example defects`, because whether any of this fires is a question about a particular library rather than about the specification.
DarkRoom
A cross-platform, non-destructive RAW photo editor for Linux and Android.
Status: early. v0.1 is a remote library viewer — see docs/milestone-v0.1.md.
Documentation
| Document | Contents |
|---|---|
| requirements.md | What the software must do — 122 numbered requirements |
| architecture.md | How it is built — crates, GPU pipeline, data model, sync |
| milestone-v0.1.md | The first buildable milestone |
Building
Desktop:
cargo run -p darkroom-desktop
Android (containerised toolchain, see docker/android):
./docker/android/build.sh cargo ndk -t arm64-v8a build --release
Current state
Working: workspace, GPU context and compute pass, adaptive Slint shell, Android cross-compilation of the core crates.
Not yet working: the zero-copy display path. The build currently uploads frames through the CPU, which is exactly what ARCH §6.1 forbids — measured at 96% of frame time at 4K. Replacing it is spike S1, the project's highest priority.
cargo run -p dr-gpu --example bench --features readback
reproduces that measurement.
Licence
GPL-3.0-or-later.