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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Skip some validation checks when BUNDLE group value is found #2735

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Skip some validation checks when BUNDLE group value is found #2735

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

stephanrotolante
Copy link
Contributor

Resolves #2621

@stephanrotolante stephanrotolante force-pushed the fix/bundle-conflicting-ufrag branch from b5d4b4f to cd16e59 Compare April 7, 2024 15:38
@Sean-Der Sean-Der force-pushed the fix/bundle-conflicting-ufrag branch from cd16e59 to 6d13523 Compare April 8, 2024 02:10
@stephanrotolante stephanrotolante force-pushed the fix/bundle-conflicting-ufrag branch from e64ce7a to e077a9e Compare April 9, 2024 01:44
@Sean-Der Sean-Der force-pushed the fix/bundle-conflicting-ufrag branch from e077a9e to a520524 Compare April 9, 2024 03:59
@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 9, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 79.02%. Comparing base (c85269b) to head (ba42ddb).
Report is 68 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #2735   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   79.01%   79.02%           
=======================================
  Files          89       89           
  Lines        8292     8295    +3     
=======================================
+ Hits         6552     6555    +3     
  Misses       1267     1267           
  Partials      473      473
Flag Coverage Δ
go 80.62% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
wasm 64.98% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@stephanrotolante stephanrotolante force-pushed the fix/bundle-conflicting-ufrag branch 3 times, most recently from c802217 to d961dd7 Compare April 19, 2024 06:09
@stephanrotolante stephanrotolante force-pushed the fix/bundle-conflicting-ufrag branch from d961dd7 to 4f52b1d Compare April 19, 2024 06:26
@nils-ohlmeier
Copy link

Thank you for the PR!
I think it's a step in the right direction. But I think we should not enforce exactly one fingerprint and icefrag, but at least one of each (and they don't need to be equal). Because that is what the Bundle RFC says essentially "ignore all the other m-sections".

@nils-ohlmeier
Copy link

I apologize, I mis-read the PR. Please ignore my previous comment.
This PR tries to enforce a single fingerprint and ice ufrag for non-bundled connections. If Pion will ever support non-bundled connections this would cause problems.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@Sean-Der Sean-Der Awaiting requested review from Sean-Der

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

RFC8843 : Accept offer with a=group:BUNDLE line even if it has conflicting ice-ufrag values
2 participants
@stephanrotolante @nils-ohlmeier