Closed
Bug 1125149
Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
Firefox implementation of getUserMedia non-compliant with standard
Categories
(Core :: WebRTC, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
DUPLICATE
of bug 1122798
backlog | parking-lot |
People
(Reporter: adrian.wilkins, Unassigned)
Details
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/35.0
Build ID: 20150112203352
Steps to reproduce:
See : https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=450549
1. Using a machine that has a microphone, but not a webcam
2. Visit a WebRTC site like http://appear.in or http://talky.io
3. Start a session
Actual results:
1. Prompted for media access permissions
2. Application works
Expected results:
1. Application should respond "couldn't get access to your camera and microphone" (the way they are written right now anyway).
Yes, it's counter-intuitive. I'm complaining about something just working.
The problem is that Firefox implementation deviates from the contract for getUserMedia ( http://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-main/#dom-mediadevices-getusermedia ) . Sites that implement WebRTC session initiation are implementing what works on Firefox and neglecting to catch MediaStreamError with a name of NotFoundError and try again with fewer items in requestedMediaTypes.
This means those sites break in Chrom(ium|e) when you have no camera. This is bad for overall WebRTC adoption ; if it's selling point is that it's available to anyone with a mainstream browser, differences in behaviour are bad.
I'm just a user though! Please refer to the Chromium guys if you want to have a technical debate about it...
Comment 1•10 years ago
|
||
with constraints for video set True,and camera disabled getUserMedia results in succes CallBack which is a incorrect behaviour(Chrome results in Error CallBack) and this is a bug on firefox browser.
getUserMedia({audio:true, video:true}, gotStream, logError);
function gotStream(stream) {
//succes CallBack
}
function logError(error) {
log(error.name );
}
Comment 2•10 years ago
|
||
Jib -- Can you recap the argument for why we do this?
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
backlog: --- → parking-lot
Ever confirmed: true
Flags: needinfo?(jib)
Comment 3•10 years ago
|
||
See bug 1122798.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Flags: needinfo?(jib)
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•