Skip to content
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

Algorithm for rejecting modification #1333

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Jun 15, 2017
Merged

Algorithm for rejecting modification #1333

merged 8 commits into from
Jun 15, 2017

Conversation

aboba
Copy link
Contributor

@aboba aboba commented Jun 5, 2017

Fix for Issues #1254, #1309, #1330 and #1344

@aboba
Copy link
Contributor Author

aboba commented Jun 5, 2017

@fippo Can you review?

@aboba aboba requested a review from taylor-b June 5, 2017 18:12
@fippo
Copy link
Contributor

fippo commented Jun 5, 2017

LGTM. You made the second commit when I was about to nag ;-)

webrtc.html Outdated
then reject <var>p</var> with a newly
<a data-link-for="exception" data-lt="create">created</a>
<code>InvalidStateError</code> and abort these steps.</p>
</li>
<li>
Let <var>lastOffer</var> be the result returned by the
last call to <code>createOffer</code>.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: It's obvious enough to me what this means, but interpreted literally, it's unclear if lastOffer is an RTCSessionDescription, a DOMString or a promise.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Clarified that this means RTCSessionDescriptionInit.sdp.

webrtc.html Outdated
<li>
If <code><var>description</var>.type</code> is
<code>offer</code> and <code><var>description</var>.sdp</code>
does not match <var>lastOffer</var>,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"does not match" could be loosely interpreted. If our requirement is that they're byte-for-byte identical, which is what JSEP ended up saying, we should make that more clear.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changed to "match byte-for-byte".

webrtc.html Outdated
<li>
If <code><var>description</var>.type</code> is
<code>offer</code> and <code><var>description</var>.sdp</code>
does not match <var>lastOffer</var> byte-for-byte,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is "does not match byte-for-byte" too informal? Could just say "is not equal to".

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

webrtc.html Outdated
then reject <var>p</var> with a newly
<a data-link-for="exception" data-lt="create">created</a>
<code>InvalidStateError</code> and abort these steps.</p>
</li>
<li>
Let <var>lastOffer</var> be the value of
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could be written such that lastOffer is an internal slot.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@aboba aboba Jun 11, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LastOffer and LastAnswer are now defined as internal slots.

webrtc.html Outdated
with a newly <a data-link-for="exception"
data-lt="create">created</a>
<code>InvalidModificationError</code> and abort these steps.
</li>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This set of steps should only apply when setting a local description; InvalidModificationError shouldn't be thrown when setting a remote offer that differs from lastOffer.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@aboba aboba Jun 11, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fixed.

@aboba aboba mentioned this pull request Jun 9, 2017
@aboba aboba changed the title algorithm for rejecting modification Algorithm for rejecting modification Jun 11, 2017
@stefhak
Copy link
Contributor

stefhak commented Jun 15, 2017

LGTM.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants