-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 131
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Proposal] Update mediaCapabilitiesProber API #1472
Open
peaBerberian
wants to merge
15
commits into
dev
Choose a base branch
from
misc/mcp-refacto
base: dev
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
peaBerberian
added
the
proposal
This Pull Request or Issue is only a proposal for a change with the expectation of a debate on it
label
Jun 26, 2024
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
misc/mcp-refacto
branch
from
June 27, 2024 13:42
a78ca09
to
bf9e326
Compare
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
misc/mcp-refacto
branch
from
July 11, 2024 09:54
bf9e326
to
52bf6ac
Compare
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
misc/mcp-refacto
branch
from
July 24, 2024 16:44
17e1a36
to
597dcb3
Compare
peaBerberian
added
the
Priority: 2 (Medium)
This issue or PR has a medium priority.
label
Jul 26, 2024
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
misc/mcp-refacto
branch
2 times, most recently
from
September 4, 2024 10:30
818d788
to
99059eb
Compare
This reverts commit fdd172a.
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
misc/mcp-refacto
branch
from
September 4, 2024 16:57
99059eb
to
538aff1
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
Priority: 2 (Medium)
This issue or PR has a medium priority.
proposal
This Pull Request or Issue is only a proposal for a change with the expectation of a debate on it
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
After some brainstorming related to #1470, we noticed that as is, our old
mediaCapabilitiesProber
experimental tool could gain by being more flexible.Especially, the
getCompatibleDRMConfigurations
method checked multiple EMEMediaKeySystemConfiguration
at once and returned information on actual configurations compatible to them once all of them have been checked.We wondered whether this method would not be more useful by making it less powerful: we'll now only check for a single
MediaKeySystemConfiguration
per method call (and rename that method tocheckDrmConfiguration
).Doing this signals to an application that it can just combine multiple calls if it wants the old behavior (e.g. through a
Promise.all
), usePromise.race
to just obtain the first one etc. (this would still be possible with the previous API, but seemed unnatural to application developers).I also added a
timeout
argument to it, but realized that it might be very complex to maintain, as theoreticallycheckDrmConfiguration
could call multiple browser API sequentially in the future (as othermediaCapabilitiesProber
's methods are doing).In that case, where are we supposed to apply the
timeout
: to each browser API call or globally on the method?I also profited from this work to rewrite the implementation of other
mediaCapabilitiesProber
's method without changing their API, as I found that a lot of its data-processing code was unneeded and difficult to follow.