Closed
Bug 942343
Opened 11 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
Pref off media.peerconnection.enabled on Firefox OS
Categories
(Core :: WebRTC, defect)
Tracking
()
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox28 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: jsmith, Assigned: jesup)
Details
Attachments
(2 files, 1 obsolete file)
1.91 KB,
patch
|
ekr
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
7.44 KB,
patch
|
smaug
:
review+
jsmith
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
With bug 941985, QC is currently blocked on their CS testing. We need to unblock them by preffing off Peer Connection support on Firefox OS until the root cause of bug 941985 is resolved.
Reporter | ||
Updated•11 years ago
|
OS: All → Gonk (Firefox OS)
Hardware: All → ARM
Reporter | ||
Updated•11 years ago
|
Summary: Pref media.peerconnection.enabled on Firefox OS → Pref off media.peerconnection.enabled on Firefox OS
Reporter | ||
Updated•11 years ago
|
blocking-b2g: --- → 1.3?
Comment 1•11 years ago
|
||
:jesup, passing this onto you for now as we are trying to avoid un-owned blocker bugs, please re-assign if needed.
Assignee: nobody → rjesup
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•11 years ago
|
||
Also dropped a few prefs we'll want to have be B2G-specific into the #ifdef, and took a first-cut at complexity defaults for B2G (may want to modify per-device for shipping builds).
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•11 years ago
|
||
for now, put the default gum capture size back to 640x480 - it's more an issue with constraining the size we want to send (until CPU monitoring is in and stable)
Assignee | ||
Updated•11 years ago
|
Attachment #8337326 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Updated•11 years ago
|
Attachment #8337333 -
Flags: review?(ekr)
Comment 4•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8337333 [details] [diff] [review] pref off RTCPeerConnection for B2G until it's functional Review of attachment 8337333 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- I think I wouldn't change max_fs and max_fr, but if you still think it's best after reading my comment below, then go ahead. ::: modules/libpref/src/init/all.js @@ +237,5 @@ > pref("media.navigator.video.default_minfps",10); > +#ifdef MOZ_WIDGET_GONK > +pref("media.peerconnection.enabled", false); > +pref("media.navigator.video.max_fs", 1200); // 640x480 == 1200mb > +pref("media.navigator.video.max_fr", 30); Why restrict these here? Based on the comments here, these settings more or less line up with 640x480 which is what you are using for video input, so this is just going to affect decoding negotiation. Is that something we really care about right now?
Attachment #8337333 -
Flags: review?(ekr) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Eric Rescorla (:ekr) from comment #4) > Comment on attachment 8337333 [details] [diff] [review] > pref off RTCPeerConnection for B2G until it's functional > > Review of attachment 8337333 [details] [diff] [review]: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > I think I wouldn't change max_fs and max_fr, but if you still think it's best > after reading my comment below, then go ahead. I think it is best, and I think we want them in there - and it's much easier to adjust the value later, than to uplift a new, un-tested pref never used before. This gets the basic pathways for max-fs/max-fr to get invoked and tested. > > ::: modules/libpref/src/init/all.js > @@ +237,5 @@ > > pref("media.navigator.video.default_minfps",10); > > +#ifdef MOZ_WIDGET_GONK > > +pref("media.peerconnection.enabled", false); > > +pref("media.navigator.video.max_fs", 1200); // 640x480 == 1200mb > > +pref("media.navigator.video.max_fr", 30); > > Why restrict these here? Based on the comments here, these settings more or > less line up with > 640x480 which is what you are using for video input, so this is just going > to affect > decoding negotiation. Is that something we really care about right now? If we want to avoid Chrome deciding to send us HD video on B2G (which was why we implemented them in the first place), yes. These are things that likely should be tuned on a per-device basis - sending us data >> screen resolution is likely not a great idea, for example. For some devices, we may want low FPS or lower max_fs than this, and this (the defaults) isn't something the app should be expected to figure out. Thanks
Comment 6•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Randell Jesup [:jesup] from comment #5) > (In reply to Eric Rescorla (:ekr) from comment #4) > > Comment on attachment 8337333 [details] [diff] [review] > > pref off RTCPeerConnection for B2G until it's functional > > > > Review of attachment 8337333 [details] [diff] [review]: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I think I wouldn't change max_fs and max_fr, but if you still think it's best > > after reading my comment below, then go ahead. > > I think it is best, and I think we want them in there - and it's much easier > to adjust the value later, than to uplift a new, un-tested pref never used > before. This gets the basic pathways for max-fs/max-fr to get invoked and > tested. I just want to note that this pref was here before, it was just set to 0. > > ::: modules/libpref/src/init/all.js > > @@ +237,5 @@ > > > pref("media.navigator.video.default_minfps",10); > > > +#ifdef MOZ_WIDGET_GONK > > > +pref("media.peerconnection.enabled", false); > > > +pref("media.navigator.video.max_fs", 1200); // 640x480 == 1200mb > > > +pref("media.navigator.video.max_fr", 30); > > > > Why restrict these here? Based on the comments here, these settings more or > > less line up with > > 640x480 which is what you are using for video input, so this is just going > > to affect > > decoding negotiation. Is that something we really care about right now? > > If we want to avoid Chrome deciding to send us HD video on B2G (which was > why we implemented them in the first place), yes. These are things that > likely should be tuned on a per-device basis - sending us data >> screen > resolution is likely not a great idea, for example. For some devices, we > may want low FPS or lower max_fs than this, and this (the defaults) isn't > something the app should be expected to figure out. > > Thanks
Reporter | ||
Comment 7•11 years ago
|
||
Do we need to land the pref off on b2g 26 as well? I'm seeing peer connection preffed on in the 26 branch: http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g26_v1_2/file/64e1acc29811/modules/libpref/src/init/all.js#l220
Updated•11 years ago
|
blocking-b2g: 1.3? → 1.3+
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•11 years ago
|
||
> > > I think I wouldn't change max_fs and max_fr, but if you still think it's best
> > > after reading my comment below, then go ahead.
> >
> > I think it is best, and I think we want them in there - and it's much easier
> > to adjust the value later, than to uplift a new, un-tested pref never used
> > before. This gets the basic pathways for max-fs/max-fr to get invoked and
> > tested.
>
> I just want to note that this pref was here before, it was just set
> to 0.
right, but that means the logic to make use of the value is effectively bypassed:
gdm_sdp.c: if (max_fs || max_fr) {
etc
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/b2g-inbound/rev/2cae126450b2
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla28
Comment 10•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Randell Jesup [:jesup] from comment #9) > https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/b2g-inbound/rev/2cae126450b2 Hey Randell, sorry had to backout this change in https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/b2g-inbound/rev/12ace9aab045 because i think it was causing perma-orange test failure in mochitest 4 and 8 like https://tbpl.mozilla.org/php/getParsedLog.php?id=31032865&tree=B2g-Inbound and https://tbpl.mozilla.org/php/getParsedLog.php?id=31032777&tree=B2g-Inbound
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•11 years ago
|
||
Turns out one test didn't include head.js (which forces peerconnection.enabled=true), and the interface tests didn't check the pref that turns on and off peerconnection (which it should have done, since it's preffable). Ran both locally in mochitest (and I modified test_interfaces.html locally to allow me to pref on and off peerconnection, and tried it both ways, plus with forcing an error to make sure the test worked correctly). https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=b34a91b359b3
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•11 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8337702 [details] [diff] [review] pref off RTCPeerConnection for B2G until it's functional Review of attachment 8337702 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Green try; needs DOM review for test_interfaces changes, jsmith for test change
Attachment #8337702 -
Flags: review?(jsmith)
Attachment #8337702 -
Flags: review?(bugs)
Updated•11 years ago
|
Attachment #8337702 -
Flags: review?(bugs) → review+
Assignee | ||
Updated•11 years ago
|
Attachment #8337702 -
Flags: review?(jsmith) → review?(hskupin)
Reporter | ||
Comment 14•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8337702 [details] [diff] [review] pref off RTCPeerConnection for B2G until it's functional Review of attachment 8337702 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- lgtm ::: dom/media/tests/mochitest/test_peerConnection_toJSON.html @@ +14,5 @@ > +<pre id="test"> > +<script type="application/javascript"> > + createHTML({ > + bug: "872377", > + title: "fixme" Nit - fix the title here to something descriptive
Attachment #8337702 -
Flags: review?(hskupin) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 15•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/b2g-inbound/rev/5de30b683df2
Reporter | ||
Comment 16•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Jason Smith [:jsmith] from comment #7) > Do we need to land the pref off on b2g 26 as well? I'm seeing peer > connection preffed on in the 26 branch: > > http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g26_v1_2/file/64e1acc29811/modules/ > libpref/src/init/all.js#l220 Randell - Can you answer this question? I need to know if this needs to be in 1.2 as well.
Flags: needinfo?(rjesup)
Comment 17•11 years ago
|
||
I am not Randell, but I believe it shoudl be off for 1.2
Reporter | ||
Comment 18•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Eric Rescorla (:ekr) from comment #17) > I am not Randell, but I believe it shoudl be off for 1.2 Okay, thanks for the confirmation. Switching to koi+ then - blocking because we need to turn off a feature that's not ready for ship on 1.2.
blocking-b2g: 1.3+ → koi+
Flags: needinfo?(rjesup)
Assignee | ||
Comment 19•11 years ago
|
||
Careful: I thought PeerConnection was never enabled on 1.2 (though via a different mechanism than the patch I landed here). Please verify with an actual 1.2 build (a simple "var pc = new mozRTCPeerConnection(); if (pc) complain;" should do); there are a number of ways you can disable peerconnection. If it really is enabled, we should disable it as it won't work.
Flags: needinfo?(jsmith)
Reporter | ||
Comment 20•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Randell Jesup [:jesup] from comment #19) > Careful: I thought PeerConnection was never enabled on 1.2 (though via a > different mechanism than the patch I landed here). Please verify with an > actual 1.2 build (a simple "var pc = new mozRTCPeerConnection(); if (pc) > complain;" should do); there are a number of ways you can disable > peerconnection. If it really is enabled, we should disable it as it won't > work. It looks like it's enabled, but we throw an exception immediately upon creation of the object. Using the pc_test page, I tried to do an audio to audio call and got: 11-25 15:20:51.120: E/GeckoConsole(482): [JavaScript Error: "NS_ERROR_UNEXPECTED: " {file: "http://mozilla.github.io/webrtc-landing/pc_test.html" line: 142}] Line 142 is the point where the peer connection is created: pc1 = new mozRTCPeerConnection(); HTML 5 Test strangely does report that WebRTC is enabled behind a prefix though. So sounds like creating the peer connection object is failing, so sounds like we're okay here.
blocking-b2g: koi+ → 1.3+
Flags: needinfo?(jsmith)
Comment 21•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/5de30b683df2
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•11 years ago
|
status-firefox28:
--- → fixed
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•