Fce 395 ex webrtc

[roznawsk]

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 30.65134% with 181 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 53.35%. Comparing base (51b22c0) to head (82b897f). Report is 1 commits behind head on webrtc-copy.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
ex_webrtc/lib/ex_webrtc_endpoint.ex	0.00%	135 Missing :warning:
ex_webrtc/lib/ex_webrtc/peer_connection_handler.ex	65.57%	42 Missing :warning:
ex_webrtc/lib/ex_webrtc/media_event.ex	0.00%	4 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff               @@
##           webrtc-copy     #406      +/-   ##
===============================================
- Coverage        54.87%   53.35%   -1.52%     
===============================================
  Files               75       82       +7     
  Lines             3357     4022     +665     
===============================================
+ Hits              1842     2146     +304     
- Misses            1515     1876     +361     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
ex_webrtc/lib/ex_webrtc/forwarder.ex	0.00% <ø> (ø)
..._webrtc/lib/ex_webrtc/noop_connection_allocator.ex	16.66% <ø> (ø)
ex_webrtc/lib/ex_webrtc/rtp_munger.ex	80.00% <ø> (ø)
ex_webrtc/lib/ex_webrtc/rtp_munger/cache.ex	90.47% <ø> (ø)
ex_webrtc/lib/ex_webrtc/simulcast_config.ex	0.00% <ø> (ø)
ex_webrtc/lib/ex_webrtc/track_receiver.ex	0.00% <ø> (ø)
ex_webrtc/lib/ex_webrtc/track_sender.ex	63.49% <ø> (ø)
ex_webrtc/lib/ex_webrtc/variant_selector.ex	84.72% <ø> (ø)
ex_webrtc/lib/ex_webrtc/variant_tracker.ex	70.00% <ø> (ø)
ex_webrtc/lib/ex_webrtc/vp8_munger.ex	96.66% <ø> (ø)
... and 3 more

... and 7 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update 51b22c0...82b897f. Read the comment docs.

[roznawsk]

I implemented most of the comment so far. I would like to implement those two suggestions in the next PR:

we should implement the same mechanism like in https://github.com/fishjam-dev/membrane_rtc_engine/pull/408 to avoid :track_metadata_update RC I think we should (if possible) subscribe only on tracks that were accepted in negotiationswe should implement the same mechanism like in https://github.com/fishjam-dev/membrane_rtc_engine/pull/408 to avoid :track_metadata_update RC

I would like also to address somehow the issue with pipe formatting. In general, I think we should follow this guide. It's annoying to find wrong formating cases by hand, so we could use credo for this. But there are also some cases where we don't want to follow the convention, mainly when using Membrane spec pipes. What do you think?

[Karolk99]

I implemented most of the comment so far. I would like to implement those two suggestions in the next PR:

we should implement the same mechanism like in #408 to avoid :track_metadata_update RC I think we should (if possible) subscribe only on tracks that were accepted in negotiationswe should implement the same mechanism like in #408 to avoid :track_metadata_update RC

I would like also to address somehow the issue with pipe formatting. In general, I think we should follow this guide. It's annoying to find wrong formating cases by hand, so we could use credo for this. But there are also some cases where we don't want to follow the convention, mainly when using Membrane spec pipes. What do you think?

same as above, just please add TODO comments regarding formatting because of membrane way of creating pipelines we should follow the guide without credo formatting for pipes