Answers can be found inline.
-Nico
On 12/7/17 12:45 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 12/6/17 3:22 PM, Nico Grunbaum wrote:
>> It is in nightly now, and we intend to ship these interfaces in 59.
>> Chrome shipped a partial implementation[3] of
>> getContributingSources() in 59. Edge has partial support[4] for
>> getContributingSources().
>
> OK. Neither of those ships getSynchronizationSources(), right?
>
Correct those are not shipping in Chrome or Edge yet. Chrome has issued
an intent to ship:
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink-dev/I39cDWKyMJo
. I have not found any such signals with regards to Edge.
>> Testing: WPT are disabled, as the tests are themselves not
>> functional[5] and there is ongoing spec discussion as how to fix
>> them[6].
>
> Do we have other (non-wpt) tests for this running in our CI?
>
Yes, we have coverage via mochitests.
> Have we done any checking of how interoperable what we're proposing to
> ship is with what the other UAs have shipped?
No, not yet, and I agree with your statements below on why this is
important to complete.
Yes, the last one in particular is an interesting point and an open
issue
https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/issues/1497. I looks to be an
2018 interim topic. There also appears to be discussion of this issue
on the Chrome bug for getContributingSources,
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=625208#c11
FWIW Our implementation makes sure that timestamp field is comparable to
Date.now() so that it will also be comparable to timestamps in
getStats(),
https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/#dom-rtcstats-timestamp .