#musicbrainz

Does the data in test.musicbrainz ever get reset? Or I can create tests against it?

It does sometimes

I wouldn't expect things to be unchanged. What are you trying to test?

Added a release with two vinyl mediums with automatic sequencing (<https://musicbrainz.org/release/7f95f3b9-c195-4...>), one with Side 1 & 4 and the other with Side 2 & 3. Hadn't run into that before, wondered if it'd be valid to add a pseudo-release with manual sequencing?

📌

> I wouldn't expect things to be unchanged. What are you trying to test?

It was to create unit tests for detecting recordings with styel issues. But I probably won't change it after coding it once so it doesn't matter much

I mean

There's nothing really forbidding you from creating new recordings to test with each time tbh

As part of another change, I am considering to change the wording of a phrase in Harmony and would appreciate a second opinion:

"Submit ISRCs from $source to MusicBrainz" or "Import ISRCs from $source into MusicBrainz"?

For the edit notes, I have the same phrase but with plain text release links, where I think that the same prepositions to/into won't work...

"Submit ISRCs from $source_release_url to $musicbrainz_release_url" or "Import ISRCs from $source_release_url into $musicbrainz_release_url"

Would you use "for $musicbrainz_release_url" in that case?

is there a way to create a cue sheet from a musicbrainz entry? original is 1 single file per CD

<kellnerd[m]> "Would you use "for $musicbrainz_..." <- any of those sound fine to me except for using "for," I'd probably go with submit/to though

technonerd (IRC): https://github.com/kellnerd/cueshit can do that, I think! try `cueshit https://musicbrainz.org/release/1646bd99-23f8-4... --to cue`

kellnerd: I think "Submit ISRCs" makes sense as the text for the action; that also matches what people see when they authenticate to MusicBrainz for isrc submission tools.

but I'd suggest using the "Import ISRCs…" version in the edit note

I think that provides better context for people who look through the edit history later

technonerd (IRC): hmm. that tool uses the musicbrainz tracklist as input, not the disc id, so it might end up being a bit off.

if you know a specific disc id that matches your disc, you could make a more accurate cue sheet.

(note that musicbrainz only stores the positions of the "INDEX 01" entries, not any of the other indexes, so the cue sheet will be incomplete for albums which use the more advanced/weirder cd features)

theres disc id to match

its a single file

Thank you for your opinions bitmap and kepstin!

So I will keep using "Submit from/to" for the release action, I have probably chosen it in the first place because of the MB permission.

Good point about the different context of the edit note, I hadn't thought about having two different wordings.

It makes sense to use "import" for these as this was the place where "submit" started to feel odd for me.

I've [changed](https://github.com/kellnerd/harmony/commit/6a2aad1fdb3cdf12f99eeba49d3f836c7489e520) the edit note.

technonerd (IRC): cueshit might not be the best fit for multi-disc releases, it ignores the disc boundary as all supported formats (except MB) do not support mutliple discs/files.

It generates one long cuesheet for a file which covers both discs.

Track lengths are also only accurate to the second, you only get millisecond/frame precision if you submit a TOC / DiscID to MusicBrainz.