call: Log LiveKit connection info refresh outcomes in retry loop - #59205
Merged
Conversation
Make the LiveKit reconnect retry loop self-diagnosing: log when the server returns no fresh connection info (old collab deploys) and whether a refreshed token actually differs from the one that failed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
cla-bot
Bot
added
the
cla-signed
zed-community-bot
Bot
added
the
staff
zed-zippy
Bot
added
the
PR state:needs review
Member
|
@zed-industries/approved |
zed-zippy
Bot
removed
the
PR state:needs review
This was referenced Jun 18, 2026
Closed
5 tasks
NsdHSO
pushed a commit
to NsdHSO/zed
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 23, 2026
- **Revert "livekit: Preserve tokens on channel rejoin (zed-industries#59388)"** - **Revert "call: Log LiveKit connection info refresh outcomes in retry loop (zed-industries#59205)"** - **Revert "audio: Fix phantom presence in channels (zed-industries#59195)"** - **proto: Reserve RejoinRoomResponse field 4 after revert** We've observed a spike of phantom collaborator issues after this fixes. This sucks and I'm quite unhappy about it. # Objective - Describe the objective or issue this PR addresses. - If you're fixing a specific issue, use "Fixes #X" for each issue as [described in the GitHub docs](https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/using-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue#linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue-using-a-keyword). ## Solution - Describe the solution used to achieve the objective above. ## Testing - Did you test these changes? If so, how? - Are there any parts that need more testing? - How can other people (reviewers) test your changes? Is there anything specific they need to know? - If relevant, what platforms did you test these changes on, and are there any important ones you can't test? ## Self-Review Checklist: - [ ] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability - [ ] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments - [ ] The content adheres to Zed's UI standards ([UX/UI](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist) and [icon](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/crates/icons/README.md) guidelines) - [ ] Tests cover the new/changed behavior - [ ] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable ## Showcase > This section is optional. If this PR does not include a visual change or does not add a new user-facing feature, you can delete this section. - Help others understand the result of this PR by showcasing your awesome work! - If this PR includes a visual change, consider adding a screenshot, GIF, or video - A before/after comparison is very useful for changes to existing features! While a showcase should aim to be brief and digestible, you can use a toggleable section to save space on longer showcases: <details> <summary>Click to view showcase</summary> My super cool demos here </details> --- Release Notes: - N/A --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
saranblock3
pushed a commit
to saranblock3/zed
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 23, 2026
- **Revert "livekit: Preserve tokens on channel rejoin (zed-industries#59388)"** - **Revert "call: Log LiveKit connection info refresh outcomes in retry loop (zed-industries#59205)"** - **Revert "audio: Fix phantom presence in channels (zed-industries#59195)"** - **proto: Reserve RejoinRoomResponse field 4 after revert** We've observed a spike of phantom collaborator issues after this fixes. This sucks and I'm quite unhappy about it. # Objective - Describe the objective or issue this PR addresses. - If you're fixing a specific issue, use "Fixes #X" for each issue as [described in the GitHub docs](https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/using-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue#linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue-using-a-keyword). ## Solution - Describe the solution used to achieve the objective above. ## Testing - Did you test these changes? If so, how? - Are there any parts that need more testing? - How can other people (reviewers) test your changes? Is there anything specific they need to know? - If relevant, what platforms did you test these changes on, and are there any important ones you can't test? ## Self-Review Checklist: - [ ] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability - [ ] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments - [ ] The content adheres to Zed's UI standards ([UX/UI](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist) and [icon](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/crates/icons/README.md) guidelines) - [ ] Tests cover the new/changed behavior - [ ] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable ## Showcase > This section is optional. If this PR does not include a visual change or does not add a new user-facing feature, you can delete this section. - Help others understand the result of this PR by showcasing your awesome work! - If this PR includes a visual change, consider adding a screenshot, GIF, or video - A before/after comparison is very useful for changes to existing features! While a showcase should aim to be brief and digestible, you can use a toggleable section to save space on longer showcases: <details> <summary>Click to view showcase</summary> My super cool demos here </details> --- Release Notes: - N/A --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
weihuoya
pushed a commit
to weihuoya/zed
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 25, 2026
- **Revert "livekit: Preserve tokens on channel rejoin (zed-industries#59388)"** - **Revert "call: Log LiveKit connection info refresh outcomes in retry loop (zed-industries#59205)"** - **Revert "audio: Fix phantom presence in channels (zed-industries#59195)"** - **proto: Reserve RejoinRoomResponse field 4 after revert** We've observed a spike of phantom collaborator issues after this fixes. This sucks and I'm quite unhappy about it. # Objective - Describe the objective or issue this PR addresses. - If you're fixing a specific issue, use "Fixes #X" for each issue as [described in the GitHub docs](https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/using-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue#linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue-using-a-keyword). ## Solution - Describe the solution used to achieve the objective above. ## Testing - Did you test these changes? If so, how? - Are there any parts that need more testing? - How can other people (reviewers) test your changes? Is there anything specific they need to know? - If relevant, what platforms did you test these changes on, and are there any important ones you can't test? ## Self-Review Checklist: - [ ] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability - [ ] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments - [ ] The content adheres to Zed's UI standards ([UX/UI](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist) and [icon](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/crates/icons/README.md) guidelines) - [ ] Tests cover the new/changed behavior - [ ] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable ## Showcase > This section is optional. If this PR does not include a visual change or does not add a new user-facing feature, you can delete this section. - Help others understand the result of this PR by showcasing your awesome work! - If this PR includes a visual change, consider adding a screenshot, GIF, or video - A before/after comparison is very useful for changes to existing features! While a showcase should aim to be brief and digestible, you can use a toggleable section to save space on longer showcases: <details> <summary>Click to view showcase</summary> My super cool demos here </details> --- Release Notes: - N/A --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This was referenced Jul 1, 2026
This was referenced Jul 10, 2026
jolutz
pushed a commit
to jolutz/zed
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 8, 2026
…-industries#59205) Follow-up to zed-industries#59195. While verifying that fix against prod we hit a log that couldn't distinguish "retrying with a fresh token that is still revoked" from "silently retrying with the same dead token because the server returned no connection info" (e.g. a collab deploy predating zed-industries#59195). Make the retry loop self-diagnosing: - Warn when `RejoinRoomResponse` carries no `live_kit_connection_info`, since the loop then reuses the existing token. - On refresh, log whether the token actually changed. Release Notes: - N/A 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
jolutz
pushed a commit
to jolutz/zed
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 8, 2026
- **Revert "livekit: Preserve tokens on channel rejoin (zed-industries#59388)"** - **Revert "call: Log LiveKit connection info refresh outcomes in retry loop (zed-industries#59205)"** - **Revert "audio: Fix phantom presence in channels (zed-industries#59195)"** - **proto: Reserve RejoinRoomResponse field 4 after revert** We've observed a spike of phantom collaborator issues after this fixes. This sucks and I'm quite unhappy about it. # Objective - Describe the objective or issue this PR addresses. - If you're fixing a specific issue, use "Fixes #X" for each issue as [described in the GitHub docs](https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/using-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue#linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue-using-a-keyword). ## Solution - Describe the solution used to achieve the objective above. ## Testing - Did you test these changes? If so, how? - Are there any parts that need more testing? - How can other people (reviewers) test your changes? Is there anything specific they need to know? - If relevant, what platforms did you test these changes on, and are there any important ones you can't test? ## Self-Review Checklist: - [ ] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability - [ ] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments - [ ] The content adheres to Zed's UI standards ([UX/UI](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist) and [icon](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/crates/icons/README.md) guidelines) - [ ] Tests cover the new/changed behavior - [ ] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable ## Showcase > This section is optional. If this PR does not include a visual change or does not add a new user-facing feature, you can delete this section. - Help others understand the result of this PR by showcasing your awesome work! - If this PR includes a visual change, consider adding a screenshot, GIF, or video - A before/after comparison is very useful for changes to existing features! While a showcase should aim to be brief and digestible, you can use a toggleable section to save space on longer showcases: <details> <summary>Click to view showcase</summary> My super cool demos here </details> --- Release Notes: - N/A --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
Follow-up to #59195. While verifying that fix against prod we hit a log that couldn't distinguish "retrying with a fresh token that is still revoked" from "silently retrying with the same dead token because the server returned no connection info" (e.g. a collab deploy predating #59195). Make the retry loop self-diagnosing:
RejoinRoomResponsecarries nolive_kit_connection_info, since the loop then reuses the existing token.Release Notes:
🤖 Generated with Claude Code