Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (3530)

• Discord.py - IndexError : list index out of range

  23 novembre 2020, par itsnexn

  Hello i start to learn python and i make bot for practie but i got this error

  


  Ignoring exception in command play:
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "C:\Users\sinad\AppData\Local\Programs\Python\Python39\lib\site-packages\discord\ext\commands\core.py", line 85, in wrapped
    ret = await coro(*args, **kwargs)
  File "d:\Projects\discord\musicbot.py", line 147, in play
    player = await YTDLSource.from_url(queue[0], loop=client.loop)
IndexError: list index out of range


  


  and i use ffmpeg to convert audio
and i write this bot in youtube and discord.py documentation
itswork well without music commend but if i use that i got error and isnt working idk why ...
this is my first python project so this is happening and its normal
and this is my code :

  


  import discord
from discord.ext import commands, tasks
from discord.voice_client import VoiceClient

import youtube_dl

from random import choice

from youtube_dl.utils import lowercase_escape

youtube_dl.utils.bug_reports_message = lambda: ''

ytdl_format_options = {
    'format': 'bestaudio/best',
    'outtmpl': '%(extractor)s-%(id)s-%(title)s.%(ext)s',
    'restrictfilenames': True,
    'noplaylist': True,
    'nocheckcertificate': True,
    'ignoreerrors': False,
    'logtostderr': False,
    'quiet': True,
    'no_warnings': True,
    'default_search': 'auto',
    'source_address': '0.0.0.0' # bind to ipv4 since ipv6 addresses cause issues sometimes
}

ffmpeg_options = {
    'options': '-vn'
}

ytdl = youtube_dl.YoutubeDL(ytdl_format_options)

class YTDLSource(discord.PCMVolumeTransformer):
    def __init__(self, source, *, data, volume=0.5):
        super().__init__(source, volume)

        self.data = data

        self.title = data.get('title')
        self.url = data.get('url')

    @classmethod
    async def from_url(cls, url, *, loop=None, stream=False):
        loop = loop or asyncio.get_event_loop()
        data = await loop.run_in_executor(None, lambda: ytdl.extract_info(url, download=not stream))

        if 'entries' in data:
            # take first item from a playlist
            data = data['entries'][0]

        filename = data['url'] if stream else ytdl.prepare_filename(data)
        return cls(discord.FFmpegPCMAudio(filename, **ffmpeg_options), data=data)


client = commands.Bot(command_prefix='.')

status = ['']
queue = []

#print on terminal when is bot ready
@client.event
async def on_ready():
    change_status.start()
    print('Bot is online!')

#Welcome message
@client.event
async def on_member_join(member):
    channel = discord.utils.get(member.guild.channels, name='general')
    await channel.send(f'Welcome {member.mention}!  Ready to jam out? See `.help` command for details!')

#ping
@client.command(name='ping', help='This command returns the latency')
async def ping(ctx):
    await ctx.send(f'**Ping!** Latency: {round(client.latency * 1000)}ms')

@client.event
async def on_message(message):

    if message.content in ['hello', 'Hello']:
        await message.channel.send("**wasaaaaaap**")

    await client.process_commands(message)


#join
@client.command(name='join', help='This command makes the bot join the voice channel')
async def join(ctx):
    if not ctx.message.author.voice:
        await ctx.send("You are not connected to a voice channel")
        return

    else:
        channel = ctx.message.author.voice.channel

    await channel.connect()

#queue
@client.command(name='queue', help='This command adds a song to the queue')
async def queue_(ctx, url):
    global queue

    queue.append(url)
    await ctx.send(f'`{url}` added to queue!')

#remove
@client.command(name='remove', help='This command removes an item from the list')
async def remove(ctx, number):
    global queue

    try:
        del(queue[int(number)])
        await ctx.send(f'Your queue is now `{queue}!`')

    except:
        await ctx.send('Your queue is either **empty** or the index is **out of range**')

#play
@client.command(name='play', help='This command plays songs')
async def play(ctx):
    global queue

    server = ctx.message.guild
    voice_channel = server.voice_client

    async with ctx.typing():
        player = await YTDLSource.from_url(queue[0], loop=client.loop)
        voice_channel.play(player, after=lambda e: print('Player error: %s' % e) if e else None)

    await ctx.send('**Now playing:** {}'.format(player.title))
    del(queue[0])

#pause
@client.command(name='pause', help='This command pauses the song')
async def pause(ctx):
    server = ctx.message.guild
    voice_channel = server.voice_client

    voice_channel.pause()

#resune
@client.command(name='resume', help='This command resumes the song!')
async def resume(ctx):
    server = ctx.message.guild
    voice_channel = server.voice_client

    voice_channel.resume()

#viow
@client.command(name='view', help='This command shows the queue')
async def view(ctx):
    await ctx.send(f'Your queue is now `{queue}!`')

#leave
@client.command(name='leave', help='This command stops makes the bot leave the voice channel')
async def leave(ctx):
    voice_client = ctx.message.guild.voice_client
    await voice_client.disconnect()

#stop
@client.command(name='stop', help='This command stops the song!')
async def stop(ctx):
    server = ctx.message.guild
    voice_channel = server.voice_client

    voice_channel.stop()

@tasks.loop(seconds=20)
async def change_status():
    await client.change_presence(activity=discord.Game(choice(status)))

client.run("my_secret")


  


• Simply beyond ridiculous

  7 mai 2010, par Dark Shikari — H.265, speed

  For the past few years, various improvements on H.264 have been periodically proposed, ranging from larger transforms to better intra prediction. These finally came together in the JCT-VC meeting this past April, where over two dozen proposals were made for a next-generation video coding standard. Of course, all of these were in very rough-draft form ; it will likely take years to filter it down into a usable standard. In the process, they’ll pick the most useful features (hopefully) from each proposal and combine them into something a bit more sane. But, of course, it all has to start somewhere.

  A number of features were common : larger block sizes, larger transform sizes, fancier interpolation filters, improved intra prediction schemes, improved motion vector prediction, increased internal bit depth, new entropy coding schemes, and so forth. A lot of these are potentially quite promising and resolve a lot of complaints I’ve had about H.264, so I decided to try out the proposal that appeared the most interesting : the Samsung+BBC proposal (A124), which claims compression improvements of around 40%.

  The proposal combines a bouillabaisse of new features, ranging from a 12-tap interpolation filter to 12thpel motion compensation and transforms as large as 64×64. Overall, I would say it’s a good proposal and I don’t doubt their results given the sheer volume of useful features they’ve dumped into it. I was a bit worried about complexity, however, as 12-tap interpolation filters don’t exactly scream “fast”.

  I prepared myself for the slowness of an unoptimized encoder implementation, compiled their tool, and started a test encode with their recommended settings.

  I waited. The first frame, an I-frame, completed.

  I took a nap.

  I waited. The second frame, a P-frame, was done.

  I played a game of Settlers.

  I waited. The third frame, a B-frame, was done.

  I worked on a term paper.

  I waited. The fourth frame, a B-frame, was done.

  After a full 6 hours, 8 frames had encoded. Yes, at this rate, it would take a full two weeks to encode 10 seconds of HD video. On a Core i7. This is not merely slow ; this is over 1000 times slower than x264 on “placebo” mode. This is so slow that it is not merely impractical ; it is impossible to even test. This encoder is apparently designed for some sort of hypothetical future computer from space. And word from other developers is that the Intel proposal is even slower.

  This has led me to suspect that there is a great deal of cheating going on in the H.265 proposals. The goal of the proposals, of course, is to pick the best feature set for the next generation video compression standard. But there is an extra motivation : organizations whose features get accepted get patents on the resulting standard, and thus income. With such large sums of money in the picture, dishonesty becomes all the more profitable.

  There is a set of rules, of course, to limit how the proposals can optimize their encoders. If different encoders use different optimization techniques, the results will no longer be comparable — remember, they are trying to compare compression features, not methods of optimizing encoder-side decisions. Thus all encoders are required to use a constant quantizer, specified frame types, and so forth. But there are no limits on how slow an encoder can be or what algorithms it can use.

  It would be one thing if the proposed encoder was a mere 10 times slower than the current reference ; that would be reasonable, given the low level of optimization and higher complexity of the new standard. But this is beyond ridiculous. With the prize given to whoever can eke out the most PSNR at a given quantizer at the lowest bitrate (with no limits on speed), we’re just going to get an arms race of slow encoders, with every company trying to use the most ridiculous optimizations possible, even if they involve encoding the frame 100,000 times over to choose the optimal parameters. And the end result will be as I encountered here : encoders so slow that they are simply impossible to even test.

  Such an arms race certainly does little good in optimizing for reality where we don’t have 30 years to encode an HD movie : a feature that gives great compression improvements is useless if it’s impossible to optimize for in a reasonable amount of time. Certainly once the standard is finalized practical encoders will be written — but it makes no sense to optimize the standard for a use-case that doesn’t exist. And even attempting to “optimize” anything is difficult when encoding a few seconds of video takes weeks.

  Update : The people involved have contacted me and insist that there was in fact no cheating going on. This is probably correct ; the problem appears to be that the rules that were set out were simply not strict enough, making many changes that I would intuitively consider “cheating” to be perfectly allowed, and thus everyone can do it.

  I would like to apologize if I implied that the results weren’t valid ; they are — the Samsung-BBC proposal is definitely one of the best, which is why I picked it to test with. It’s just that I think any situation in which it’s impossible to test your own software is unreasonable, and thus the entire situation is an inherently broken one, given the lax rules, slow baseline encoder, and no restrictions on compute time.

• Simply beyond ridiculous

  7 mai 2010, par Dark Shikari — H.265, speed

  For the past few years, various improvements on H.264 have been periodically proposed, ranging from larger transforms to better intra prediction. These finally came together in the JCT-VC meeting this past April, where over two dozen proposals were made for a next-generation video coding standard. Of course, all of these were in very rough-draft form ; it will likely take years to filter it down into a usable standard. In the process, they’ll pick the most useful features (hopefully) from each proposal and combine them into something a bit more sane. But, of course, it all has to start somewhere.

  A number of features were common : larger block sizes, larger transform sizes, fancier interpolation filters, improved intra prediction schemes, improved motion vector prediction, increased internal bit depth, new entropy coding schemes, and so forth. A lot of these are potentially quite promising and resolve a lot of complaints I’ve had about H.264, so I decided to try out the proposal that appeared the most interesting : the Samsung+BBC proposal (A124), which claims compression improvements of around 40%.

  The proposal combines a bouillabaisse of new features, ranging from a 12-tap interpolation filter to 12thpel motion compensation and transforms as large as 64×64. Overall, I would say it’s a good proposal and I don’t doubt their results given the sheer volume of useful features they’ve dumped into it. I was a bit worried about complexity, however, as 12-tap interpolation filters don’t exactly scream “fast”.

  I prepared myself for the slowness of an unoptimized encoder implementation, compiled their tool, and started a test encode with their recommended settings.

  I waited. The first frame, an I-frame, completed.

  I took a nap.

  I waited. The second frame, a P-frame, was done.

  I played a game of Settlers.

  I waited. The third frame, a B-frame, was done.

  I worked on a term paper.

  I waited. The fourth frame, a B-frame, was done.

  After a full 6 hours, 8 frames had encoded. Yes, at this rate, it would take a full two weeks to encode 10 seconds of HD video. On a Core i7. This is not merely slow ; this is over 1000 times slower than x264 on “placebo” mode. This is so slow that it is not merely impractical ; it is impossible to even test. This encoder is apparently designed for some sort of hypothetical future computer from space. And word from other developers is that the Intel proposal is even slower.

  This has led me to suspect that there is a great deal of cheating going on in the H.265 proposals. The goal of the proposals, of course, is to pick the best feature set for the next generation video compression standard. But there is an extra motivation : organizations whose features get accepted get patents on the resulting standard, and thus income. With such large sums of money in the picture, dishonesty becomes all the more profitable.

  There is a set of rules, of course, to limit how the proposals can optimize their encoders. If different encoders use different optimization techniques, the results will no longer be comparable — remember, they are trying to compare compression features, not methods of optimizing encoder-side decisions. Thus all encoders are required to use a constant quantizer, specified frame types, and so forth. But there are no limits on how slow an encoder can be or what algorithms it can use.

  It would be one thing if the proposed encoder was a mere 10 times slower than the current reference ; that would be reasonable, given the low level of optimization and higher complexity of the new standard. But this is beyond ridiculous. With the prize given to whoever can eke out the most PSNR at a given quantizer at the lowest bitrate (with no limits on speed), we’re just going to get an arms race of slow encoders, with every company trying to use the most ridiculous optimizations possible, even if they involve encoding the frame 100,000 times over to choose the optimal parameters. And the end result will be as I encountered here : encoders so slow that they are simply impossible to even test.

  Such an arms race certainly does little good in optimizing for reality where we don’t have 30 years to encode an HD movie : a feature that gives great compression improvements is useless if it’s impossible to optimize for in a reasonable amount of time. Certainly once the standard is finalized practical encoders will be written — but it makes no sense to optimize the standard for a use-case that doesn’t exist. And even attempting to “optimize” anything is difficult when encoding a few seconds of video takes weeks.

  Update : The people involved have contacted me and insist that there was in fact no cheating going on. This is probably correct ; the problem appears to be that the rules that were set out were simply not strict enough, making many changes that I would intuitively consider “cheating” to be perfectly allowed, and thus everyone can do it.

  I would like to apologize if I implied that the results weren’t valid ; they are — the Samsung-BBC proposal is definitely one of the best, which is why I picked it to test with. It’s just that I think any situation in which it’s impossible to test your own software is unreasonable, and thus the entire situation is an inherently broken one, given the lax rules, slow baseline encoder, and no restrictions on compute time.