Handle mixed sourcebuffer errors #5623
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
…tive errors per buffer type
robwalch
force-pushed
the
enhancement/append-errors-per-source-buffer-type
branch
from
2aeeb42 to
3673ce0
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR will...
Handle mixed SourceBuffer append errors, up to
appendErrorMaxRetryconsecutive errors per SourceBuffer type ('audio', 'video', and 'audiovideo').Why is this Pull Request needed?
Allows append errors across SourceBuffers until the limit of consecutive errors is reached for a single type. The error count is reset for a particular type after a successful append. This prevents some sequences of append errors from being escalated to fatal, which may be recoverable. This also helps to deal with or identify append errors caused by unsupported mixed segment types, such as unmuxed and muxed 'video' and 'audiovideo' segments (#5369).
Are there any points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Resolves issues:
Related to #5369, #1510
Checklist