Both tables decide what codec ends up in the user's file, and neither was
exercised. Point H265 at VIDEO_H264 and every hardware HEVC export writes
H.264 into a file the user asked to be H.265: Transformer does as told, the
export succeeds, and the only symptom is a codec nobody chose.
One arm carried an assertion rather than a value -- "Never reached: only an
Encode plan consults this, and COPY/NONE are not Encode" -- which is a claim
about callers parked in a branch of a callee. It is true, and nothing checked
it, so it would have gone on reading as true after it stopped being. Proved
instead: CopyPlanner answers both codecs before the Encode branch and its
fallback draws from ContainerCapabilities.encodableVideo, which contains
neither, so a sweep over every spec the planner can be handed asserts no
Encode plan carries COPY or NONE. Counters guard the sweep, because
`as? Encode ?: let` asserts nothing at all for a Drop or Copy plan.
The audio sibling claim did not survive intact. "MP3 and FLAC have no Android
encoder; the router routes them to FFmpeg" is true and incomplete: one rule,
`audioEncode !in MEDIA3_AUDIO`, diverts Vorbis by identical logic, so three of
the six encodable codecs never reach the table. VORBIS -> AUDIO_VORBIS is a
correct mapping for a request Transformer is never given. The arm stays -- a
right answer in unreachable code costs nothing -- and the comment now says so.
The tables are asked of the router's decisions rather than of its codec sets,
because the comments claim behaviour and a set can be right while the rule
reading it is wrong. Both move to an internal companion object so a JVM test
can reach them without constructing an engine, which would start a real
HandlerThread to answer an enum lookup; #57's precedent, and the JVM test
source set is a friend of main.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
JMR-devandClaude Opus 5
5ec2bba64b