fix: Fix audio/video limits since muted stated was moved to SourceInfo. #1090
Conversation
| import org.jitsi.utils.OrderedJsonObject | ||
| import org.jitsi.utils.logging2.Logger | ||
| import org.jitsi.utils.logging2.createChildLogger | ||
| import org.jitsi.xmpp.extensions.jitsimeet.AudioMutedExtension | ||
| import org.jitsi.xmpp.extensions.jitsimeet.FeaturesExtension |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does it matter what jigasi is sending? As It still uses those extensions?
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1090 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 27.58% 27.68% +0.09%
- Complexity 493 494 +1
============================================
Files 129 129
Lines 7728 7748 +20
Branches 1087 1097 +10
============================================
+ Hits 2132 2145 +13
- Misses 5323 5329 +6
- Partials 273 274 +1
Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
| @@ -175,22 +188,6 @@ class ChatRoomMemberImpl( | |||
| presence.getExtension(StatsId::class.java)?.let { | |||
| statsId = it.statsId | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we not leave this in if the endpoint doesn't support source-names ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do endpoints with source name support always include SourceInfo (even when they don't have any tracks)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nope, SourceInfo gets added only if there are local tracks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, just realized that we send an empty SourceInfo on join if the endpoint doesn't have any local tracks.
"<SourceInfo>{}</SourceInfo>"
| /** The information about a source contained in a jitsi-meet SourceInfo extension. */ | ||
| data class SourceInfo( | ||
| val name: String, | ||
| val muted: Boolean, | ||
| val videoType: VideoType? | ||
| ) | ||
| ) { | ||
| val mediaType: MediaType? = name.indexOf('-').let { indexOfDash -> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd rather we signal this explicitly rather than implicitly as here, though that can potentially be a separate PR (and would require client changes).
No description provided.