Bug 1723703 Comment 9 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

(In reply to Jan-Ivar Bruaroey [:jib] (needinfo? me) from comment #6)
> So how to fix it. I'd rather not back out bug 1443294, since the <90 behavior combined with the new permission grace periods, was interfering with device switching.

Thanks for looking into this!
I agree that we shouldn't back out Bug 1443294. I'm a bit worried that, by changing the prompt heuristics, we're making it even more difficult for websites to predict FF behavior.

> A more aggressive band-aid might be to reinstate the old behavior only when no [inherent](https://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-main/getusermedia.html#list-of-inherent-constrainable-track-properties) constraints (`deviceId`, `facingMode`, `groupId`) are passed for a kind. This might be the most pragmatic solution, since implicit choosing of multiple cameras based on non-inherent device properties like resolution isn't very practical.

This seems like a good compromise. In what sense do you think it's aggressive? Could this have other side effects / potentially lead to more breakage?

:jib, would you like to take the bug?
(In reply to Jan-Ivar Bruaroey [:jib] (needinfo? me) from comment #6)
> So how to fix it. I'd rather not back out bug 1443294, since the <90 behavior combined with the new permission grace periods, was interfering with device switching.

Thanks for looking into this!
I agree that we shouldn't back out Bug 1443294. I'm a bit worried that, by changing the prompt heuristics, we're making it even more difficult for websites to predict FF behavior.

> A more aggressive band-aid might be to reinstate the old behavior only when no [inherent](https://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-main/getusermedia.html#list-of-inherent-constrainable-track-properties) constraints (`deviceId`, `facingMode`, `groupId`) are passed for a kind. This might be the most pragmatic solution, since implicit choosing of multiple cameras based on non-inherent device properties like resolution isn't very practical.

This seems like a good compromise. In what sense do you think it's aggressive? Could this have other side effects / potentially lead to more breakage?

Would you like to take the bug?

Back to Bug 1723703 Comment 9