Welcome to the Panopto Community

Please note: All new registrants to the Panopto Community Forum must be approved by a forum moderator or admin. As such, if you navigate to a feature that is members-only, you may receive an error page if your registration has not yet been approved. We apologize for any inconvenience and are approving new members as quickly as possible.

Defining P1, P2 etc in session manifest file

John RobertsJohn Roberts Tyro
in API

I'm working on a auto recording upload connector between our Zoom tenant and our on-prem Panopto instance.

When generating a ucs.xml session manifest file using the universal-capture-2.1 schema I am able to successfully specify multiple video files as Primary. However, I also want to be able to definitively assign specific video files to specific tracks (i.e. P1, P2, P3 etc) in the Panopto editor.

How can I guarantee the ordering of video files in Panopto editor tracks via the ucs.xml session manifest?

Answers

  • Adis HrnjicaAdis Hrnjica Whiz Kid

    Hi John,

    Schema Structure: The UCS 2.1 schema defines video types as:

    • Primary - positioned to the left side of the viewer
    • Secondary - positioned to the right side of the viewer
    • Audio - audio-only recording

    Track Ordering: When you have multiple videos with Type="Primary", Panopto processes them sequentially in the order they appear in the XML's <Videos> array and assigns them to tracks P1, P2, P3, etc.

    The UCS schema doesn't have explicit P1/P2/P3 attributes - track assignment is purely based on XML element order. The Panopto backend processes videos in document order using standard XML parsing, so the first Primary video becomes P1, second becomes P2, etc.

    I hope this helps.

    Thanks,

    Adis

  • John RobertsJohn Roberts Tyro

    Got it, thanks Adis.

    In my testing before creating this post I thought that I found this wasn't guaranteed, the videos were showing in Panopto in an order different from what I expected. I have run one more test right now and they are coming in in the correct order, so it's possible there was a bug in my test environment during my initial tests. Will test some more to ensure I'm receiving consistent expected ordering.

    Out of curiosity, is it documented anywhere that the track assignment is guaranteed to be based on XML element order?

  • Adis HrnjicaAdis Hrnjica Whiz Kid

    Hi John,

    Based on the code analysis it seems it should work that way. I don't think there is a documentation that I'm aware of.

    Thanks,

    Adis

Sign In or Register to comment.