Skip to content

Conversation

mengelbart
Copy link
Contributor

@mengelbart mengelbart commented Oct 15, 2025

Alternative but cleaner implementation for congestion control feedback receiver (#300). The main difference between this and #300 is that #300 organizes the feedback per stream, while this version organizes it as a single linear stream, which is easier to process. If one still needs to know which stream a packet was sent on, that information is still included in the reports for each packet.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 15, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 78.77095% with 76 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 78.74%. Comparing base (8492094) to head (ceaeb98).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
pkg/rtpfb/interceptor.go 75.51% 30 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️
pkg/rtpfb/twcc_receiver.go 70.42% 21 Missing ⚠️
pkg/rtpfb/history.go 79.78% 14 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #374      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   78.62%   78.74%   +0.11%     
==========================================
  Files          82       86       +4     
  Lines        5109     5467     +358     
==========================================
+ Hits         4017     4305     +288     
- Misses        921      982      +61     
- Partials      171      180       +9     
Flag Coverage Δ
go 78.74% <78.77%> (+0.11%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@mengelbart mengelbart force-pushed the feat/rtpfb-receiver-2 branch 5 times, most recently from ce5124b to 0912350 Compare October 18, 2025 21:47
@mengelbart mengelbart force-pushed the feat/rtpfb-receiver-2 branch from 0912350 to ceaeb98 Compare October 18, 2025 21:49
@mengelbart mengelbart marked this pull request as ready for review October 18, 2025 21:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant