Skip to content

Conversation

@MGaetan89
Copy link
Contributor

@MGaetan89 MGaetan89 commented Aug 15, 2024

Pull request

Description

This PR updates our QoS implementation to take into consideration the latest changes that we agreed to do.

Changes made

  • Add the schema version in the root QoS model.
  • Keep bandwidth and indicatedBitrate in bits per second.
  • Add the stream type to the status event.
  • Add a VPN flag.
  • Rework the playerPosition to have duration, position and positionTimestamp instead.
  • Split timeMetrics into qoeTimings and qosTimings.
  • Fix some small warnings.
  • Improve some Javadoc throughout the project.

Checklist

  • Your branch has been rebased onto the main branch.
  • APIs have been properly documented (if relevant).
  • The documentation has been updated (if relevant).
  • New unit tests have been written (if relevant).
  • The demo has been updated (if relevant).
  • All pull request status checks pass.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 16, 2024

Code Coverage

Overall Project 54.1% -0.6% 🟢
Files changed 87.96% 🟢

Module Coverage
:pillarbox-player 61.69% -0.84% 🟢
:pillarbox-ui 0.09% -0.84% 🟢
Files
Module File Coverage
:pillarbox-player QoSEvent.kt 100% 🟢
QoSTimings.kt 100% 🟢
QoSSession.kt 100% 🟢
QoSMessage.kt 100% 🟢
QoETimings.kt 100% 🟢
QoSError.kt 97.8% 🟢
PlaybackMetrics.kt 97.39% 🟢
SessionMetrics.kt 94.35% -3.39% 🟢
PlaybackSessionManager.kt 92.97% -4.73% 🟢
QoSCoordinator.kt 89.73% -5.5% 🟢
PillarboxExoPlayer.kt 82.73% 🟢
PlayerCallbackFlow.kt 70.44% -1.65% 🟢
MetricsCollector.kt 67.97% 🟢
Player.kt 39.57% -3.04% 🟢
:pillarbox-ui PlayerSurface.kt 0.44% 🟢
SphericalSurface.kt 0% 🟢
ExoplayerSubtitleView.kt 0% 🟢
ComposablePlayer.kt 0% -6.01% 🟢
DelayedVisibilityState.kt 0% 🟢

@MGaetan89 MGaetan89 linked an issue Aug 16, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
@MGaetan89 MGaetan89 changed the title Improve wording and fix some warnings Update QoS models to match the latest specification Aug 16, 2024
@MGaetan89 MGaetan89 marked this pull request as ready for review August 16, 2024 07:12
@MGaetan89 MGaetan89 force-pushed the 676-update-qos-models-to-match-the-latest-specification branch from fd9f493 to 07a412b Compare August 19, 2024 12:18
@MGaetan89 MGaetan89 force-pushed the 676-update-qos-models-to-match-the-latest-specification branch 3 times, most recently from 80d3228 to bc85d14 Compare August 21, 2024 07:33
@MGaetan89 MGaetan89 force-pushed the 676-update-qos-models-to-match-the-latest-specification branch from df7e806 to 97a5e4d Compare August 26, 2024 09:56
@MGaetan89 MGaetan89 force-pushed the 676-update-qos-models-to-match-the-latest-specification branch from 97a5e4d to 44e5ea2 Compare August 26, 2024 14:34
@StaehliJ StaehliJ merged commit 5acbe91 into qos Aug 28, 2024
@StaehliJ StaehliJ deleted the 676-update-qos-models-to-match-the-latest-specification branch August 28, 2024 06:34
StaehliJ added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 28, 2024
Co-authored-by: Joaquim Stähli <joaquim.staehli@gmail.com>
StaehliJ added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 11, 2024
Co-authored-by: Joaquim Stähli <joaquim.staehli@gmail.com>
MGaetan89 added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 12, 2024
Co-authored-by: Joaquim Stähli <joaquim.staehli@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: ✅ Done

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Update QoS models to match the latest specification

2 participants