Expected vs actual Layer based connection quality. #1509
Merged
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
With VBR streams (like screen share), bit rate is not a good indicator of whether desired layer (spatial/temporal) is achieved due to high variance. Using expected vs actual layer (i. e. distance to desired) can capture any short fall and include it in quality scoring. This PR uses distance to desired, i. e. how many steps it would take to go from actual spatial/temporal -> desired spatial/temporal and that distance is propotionally used (currently it is just linear) to decrease score.
paulwe
reviewed
Mar 10, 2023
Comment on lines
195
to
199
| w.streamTrackerManager.OnAvailableLayersChanged(w.downTrackLayerChange) | ||
| w.streamTrackerManager.OnBitrateAvailabilityChanged(w.downTrackBitrateAvailabilityChange) | ||
| w.streamTrackerManager.OnMaxPublishedLayerChanged(w.downTrackMaxPublishedLayerChange) | ||
| w.streamTrackerManager.OnMaxTemporalLayerSeenChanged(w.downTrackMaxTemporalLayerSeenChange) | ||
| w.streamTrackerManager.OnBitrateReport(w.downTrackBitrateReport) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
all of these are bound to the same object, wouldn't it be easier to use an interface? this callback pattern defeats the go language server and makes it a lot harder to traverse code - with interfaces we can use gopls on the interface and find all the implementations (usually only one or one real + one fake) and view call hierarchies that include these functions. with the callback pattern the only way to figure out what the callback points to is to manually track down the handler binding function and look up where it gets called and what is passed to it. and some of these callbacks are like 5+ indirections deep...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
good idea @paulwe . Will look at it.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
With VBR streams (like screen share), bit rate is not a good indicator
of whether desired layer (spatial/temporal) is achieved due to high
variance.
Using expected vs actual layer (i. e. distance to desired) can capture
any short fall and include it in quality scoring.
This PR uses distance to desired, i. e. how many steps it would take to
go from actual spatial/temporal -> desired spatial/temporal and that
distance is proportionally used (currently it is just linear) to decrease
score.
This is currently applied only to screen share tracks. It is possible to apply
this to camera tracks also, but bitrate based scoring is a bit more elegant
than layer based.