Type in your question below and we'll check to see what answers we can find...
Loading article...
Submitting...
If you couldn't find any answers in the previous step then we need to post your question in the community and wait for someone to respond. You'll be notified when that happens.
Simply add some detail to your question and refine the title if needed, choose the relevant category, then post.
Before we can post your question we need you to quickly make an account (or sign in if you already have one).
Don't worry - it's quick and painless! Just click below, and once you're logged in we'll bring you right back here and post your question. We'll remember what you've already typed in so you won't have to do it again.
Hi there,
This is a Problem regarding the web api get playback state /v1/me/player
the timestamp field is inconsistent. I am trying to accurately get users playback / progress time
The documentation says : timestamp [integer] - Unix Millisecond Timestamp when data was fetched.
however I am finding that
1. if i start playing a track, the timestamp comes back as the time when the song started. with the current time this allows you to infer the current time accurately, however
2. if playback is paused, or skipped to a different time, the timestamp is now this new time when it was resumed. without knowing the progress at that time however you can't really infer (precisely) the playback time.
3. using the progress_ms field and counting the time since the data was received is not precise and varies in accuracy as it takes a while until the data is received and processed in the endpoint.
Shouldn't the timestamp (as per documentation) always be the current time of the data request, i.e. when it was fetched? then the frontend / endpoint could accurately know at what time the response was send and determine how much time has passed since
i.e. accurate progress = progress_ms + ( time_now - timestamp )
If there is another way to accurately know the playback time I am all ears, but it seems to me this timestamp field is not quite what it is supposed to be / as described.
Thanks in advance for any help,
Cheers,
Thomas