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
Match header extensions to all media sections in offer #2444
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good to me. If one other person can quickly eyeball this (@Sean-Der / @davidzhao ?) then I am happy to merge it. @ellenfkh - can you kindly squash the commits and make sure the new commit message passes the lint rules (begins with a capital letter, no more than 50 characters). Thanks!
Codecov ReportAll modified lines are covered by tests ✅ see 50 files with indirect coverage changes 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for the PR. It looks good!
Sorry for the delays getting to this one.
Description
We noticed that once pion has negotiated headers and codecs for a given Kind, when a subsequent offer SDP adds a media section for that same Kind with different header extensions, the generated answer uses the original headers for all media sections.
This doesn't happen in Chrome, which never seems to send mixed headers like this. Firefox does, though.
We ran into this when sending an offer in which the first video media section had simulcast disabled, and thus didn't set this attribute
but the second video media section had simulcast enabled, so included that header.
The resulting answer didn't include that header in either media section, but the second media section did correctly have these attributes
Resulting in this error
This patch fixes our manual test case, but I suspect there are more places in the code where this assumption is being made. I'm also not sure whether Plan B vs Unified expects different behavior in this case.
Reference issue
Fixes #...