Skip to content

Conversation

@robintown
Copy link
Member

@robintown robintown commented Dec 10, 2025

⚠️ Based on #3624: please review one commit at a time, starting from commit 64db7a3

We would show 'waiting for media' on participants that were connected but had no published tracks, because we were filtering them out of the remote participants list on connections. I believe this was done in an attempt to limit our view to only the participants that have a matching MatrixRTC membership. But that's fully redundant to the "Matrix-LiveKit members" module, which actually has the right information to do this (the MatrixRTC memberships).

After fixing that, I tried to improve some things that had been entangled. The commits have all the details.

Closes #3627

They had loose types that were allowing them also output local members. They don't do this, it's just misleading.
By tagging participant behaviors with a type (local vs. remote) we can now tell what kind of participant it will be in a completely type-safe manner.
The doc comment here was about to become stale, so let's just remove it.
We would show 'waiting for media' on participants that were connected but had no published tracks, because we were filtering them out of the remote participants list on connections. I believe this was done in an attempt to limit our view to only the participants that have a matching MatrixRTC membership. But that's fully redundant to the "Matrix-LiveKit members" module, which actually has the right information to do this (the MatrixRTC memberships).
On second glance, the way that we determined a media tile to be 'waiting for media' was too implicit for my taste. It would appear on a surface reading to depend on whether a participant was currently publishing any video. But in reality, the 'video' object was always defined as long as a LiveKit participant existed, so in reality it depended on just the participant. We should show this relationship more explicitly by moving the computation into the view model, where it can depend on the participant directly.
We don't expect them to be publishing on any transport; they might be a subscribe-only bot.
There's no reason to allow it to take on placeholder values. It should be defined when the media has a published video track and undefined when not.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

PR-Bug-Fix Release note category. A PR that fixes a bug. X-Blocked Cannot be merged due to external dependencies

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

'Waiting for media' when other party joins with audio and video disabled

1 participant