-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31
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
Add remaining room APIs #1705
Add remaining room APIs #1705
Conversation
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1705 +/- ##
===================================================
+ Coverage 52.78002% 53.16430% +0.38428%
===================================================
Files 75 75
Lines 4964 5009 +45
Branches 988 992 +4
===================================================
+ Hits 2620 2663 +43
- Misses 2007 2009 +2
Partials 337 337
Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
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.
LGTM with nits, the only a little stronger preference is for the egress API to receive a stream ID instead (or primarily) of a raw RTMP URL. Still not a required change tho.
expect(res.status).toBe(400); | ||
|
||
res = await client.post(`/room/${roomRes.id}/egress`, { | ||
rtmpURL: "rtmp", |
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.
Could we allow at least sending a stream ID here, so it's not something alien to the rest of our API? (if you do so, make sure to check the stream belongs to the same user as the room / as the caller)
That should also be the recommended way for egress configuration, with an optional way of specifying a "third-party" stream. wdyt?
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.
Yeah you're right, it should definitely just accept a streamID, and the third party stream would be something to consider later on down the line, for now we've only discussed streaming to livepeer.
"&token=" + | ||
token, | ||
}); | ||
} |
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.
Don't we need to edit the participants
field in the room here? Or is it only updated on the webhooks?
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.
I was thinking we only really need to track who has actually joined the room (since we only start being charged at that point). But I guess it might be useful to keep track of when and what tokens have been generated, for debugging. WDYT?
* add more apis * add tests * add schemas * record egress events * address review comments
What does this pull request do? Explain your changes. (required)
Add in remaining room APIs for the multiparticipant feature
Specific updates (required)
How did you test each of these updates (required)
Does this pull request close any open issues?
Screenshots (optional)
Checklist