Fix num_reports usage, see errata 8166 #187
Open
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
|
Looks like we ran into this before... |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #187 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 77.90% 77.74% -0.17%
==========================================
Files 22 22
Lines 2512 2507 -5
==========================================
- Hits 1957 1949 -8
- Misses 460 462 +2
- Partials 95 96 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
aalekseevx
approved these changes
Jan 30, 2025
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was an errata about the usage of num_reports, and if I understand it correctly, Pion uses the now outdated interpretation of num_reports. This PR fixes this. I don't know if this will break users. Probably only when they try to interop with clients using the old interpretation (like old versions of Pion).
The errata can be found here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8166
and the corresponding discussions on the mailing list:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/jCjC3nk52iW0_NHx64bSx8_nn_E/
The
overflowEndSequencetest case looks wrong to me. It shouldn't error, but instead, wrap the sequence number around. I added a corresponding test case for that. Seems like a bug in the old implementation?