Skip to content

Populate client_protocol field in ParticipantInfo#4293

Merged
boks1971 merged 2 commits intomasterfrom
raja_client_protocol
Feb 5, 2026
Merged

Populate client_protocol field in ParticipantInfo#4293
boks1971 merged 2 commits intomasterfrom
raja_client_protocol

Conversation

@boks1971
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@boks1971 boks1971 commented Feb 5, 2026

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Chores
    • Updated dependencies to newer stable versions for improved stability and compatibility.
    • Enhanced participant metadata to include client protocol details in serialized participant information.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Copy Markdown

coderabbitai bot commented Feb 5, 2026

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Updates multiple Go module versions and adds the ParticipantInfo.ClientProtocol field population in the RTC participant serialization.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Dependency Updates
go.mod
Bumped multiple modules: github.com/livekit/protocol to 0.20260205174004-cd064b4fb1c2, go.opentelemetry.io/otel packages to v1.40.0, github.com/pion/rtp to v1.10.1, github.com/redis/go-redis/v9 to v9.17.3, github.com/google/cel-go to v0.27.0, github.com/nats-io/nkeys to v0.4.15, github.com/zeebo/xxh3 to v1.1.0, and updated google.golang.org/genproto timestamps. Removed indirect github.com/stoewer/go-strcase.
Proto Field Addition
pkg/rtc/participant.go
In ToProtoWithVersion, populate ParticipantInfo.ClientProtocol from p.params.ClientInfo.ClientInfo.GetClientProtocol() when present; no signature changes.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Poem

🐰 I nibble at modules, one hop at a time,
I tuck a new field where the proto bells chime,
Dependencies pruned and versions in line,
A tiny change made, the build sings—so fine! 🎋

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3
✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check ✅ Passed The title 'Populate client_protocol field in ParticipantInfo' directly and specifically describes the main change in the pull request: adding the ClientProtocol field population in the ParticipantInfo serialization.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.

✨ Finishing touches
  • 📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment
  • Commit unit tests in branch raja_client_protocol

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between b53e056 and 5b3b62f.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • pkg/rtc/participant.go
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
  • pkg/rtc/participant.go
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)
  • GitHub Check: test
  • GitHub Check: Analyze (go)

✏️ Tip: You can disable this entire section by setting review_details to false in your review settings.


Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

Kind: grants.GetParticipantKind(),
KindDetails: grants.GetKindDetails(),
DisconnectReason: p.CloseReason().ToDisconnectReason(),
ClientProtocol: p.params.ClientInfo.ClientInfo.GetClientProtocol(),
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

just doublechecking - this (p.params.ClientInfo.ClientInfo) can't be nil - right?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It should not be, but good point, will add a check

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Addressed in 5b3b62f

@boks1971 boks1971 merged commit 195b17f into master Feb 5, 2026
8 checks passed
@boks1971 boks1971 deleted the raja_client_protocol branch February 5, 2026 19:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants