-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Test webrtc/content-security-policy integration #32914
Conversation
...as specified in: - w3c/webappsec-csp#457 - w3c/webrtc-extensions#81
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry, I don't have enough knowledge of webrtc to review the code. Hope some of the other reviewers does.
@jan-ivar, @alvestrand, any thoughts? |
Ping? |
@zenhack That should also take care of the "Unknown ufrag" errors. Otherwise the tests look good, thanks for writing them! |
Co-authored-by: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jan-ivar@users.noreply.github.com>
we should be passing each candidate to the *other* pc. Tests now behave as expected.
Ok, I think I have addressed everything. |
"new" is the initial state. Co-authored-by: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jan-ivar@users.noreply.github.com>
@annevk, @alvestrand, ping? |
So this has one sign-off and no other comments. What is the next step? |
LGTM as well. |
Based on and earlier comment from @antosart and @annevk's approval of the PR this is testing, I think we're good to merge. |
…2914) * Test webrtc/content-security-policy integration ...as specified in: - w3c/webappsec-csp#457 - w3c/webrtc-extensions#81 * Fix typos in comment. Co-authored-by: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jan-ivar@users.noreply.github.com> * Fix ice candidate exchange in CSP webrtc tests. we should be passing each candidate to the *other* pc. Tests now behave as expected. * CSP webrtc tests: listen for connection state change, not gathering. See web-platform-tests#32914 (comment) * CSP webrtc tests: drop unnecessary stun server. * webrtc csp: simplify state checking "new" is the initial state. Co-authored-by: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jan-ivar@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jan-ivar@users.noreply.github.com>
…gration, a=testonly Automatic update from web-platform-tests Test webrtc/content-security-policy integration (#32914) * Test webrtc/content-security-policy integration ...as specified in: - w3c/webappsec-csp#457 - w3c/webrtc-extensions#81 * Fix typos in comment. Co-authored-by: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jan-ivar@users.noreply.github.com> * Fix ice candidate exchange in CSP webrtc tests. we should be passing each candidate to the *other* pc. Tests now behave as expected. * CSP webrtc tests: listen for connection state change, not gathering. See web-platform-tests/wpt#32914 (comment) * CSP webrtc tests: drop unnecessary stun server. * webrtc csp: simplify state checking "new" is the initial state. Co-authored-by: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jan-ivar@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jan-ivar@users.noreply.github.com> -- wpt-commits: 0abba58602758eb8be11c38788c6f51fed2529e4 wpt-pr: 32914
…gration, a=testonly Automatic update from web-platform-tests Test webrtc/content-security-policy integration (#32914) * Test webrtc/content-security-policy integration ...as specified in: - w3c/webappsec-csp#457 - w3c/webrtc-extensions#81 * Fix typos in comment. Co-authored-by: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jan-ivar@users.noreply.github.com> * Fix ice candidate exchange in CSP webrtc tests. we should be passing each candidate to the *other* pc. Tests now behave as expected. * CSP webrtc tests: listen for connection state change, not gathering. See web-platform-tests/wpt#32914 (comment) * CSP webrtc tests: drop unnecessary stun server. * webrtc csp: simplify state checking "new" is the initial state. Co-authored-by: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jan-ivar@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jan-ivar@users.noreply.github.com> -- wpt-commits: 0abba58602758eb8be11c38788c6f51fed2529e4 wpt-pr: 32914
...as specified in:
This is a work in progress; in particular:
If I silence that one rejection they pass (and the "blocked" tests still fail), but I don't know the right approach to make sure that event doesn't fire before we can handle it.
I would appreciate feedback.
cc: @jan-ivar @alvestrand @annevk @antosart