-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
feat(chromecast): publish receiver-facing IPv6 media tickets (tr-b5s) #174
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
Open
jm2
wants to merge
4
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
polecat/tr-b5s
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
34ebd42
feat(chromecast): publish receiver-facing IPv6 media tickets
975160a
feat(chromecast): accept IPv6 control endpoints when the listener is V6
jm2 68efb8a
fix(chromecast): narrow wildcard arm in lan bind selector (tr-b5s)
jm2 f795bdb
fix(chromecast): routing-aware bind with target, drop V6 listener lat…
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Low: this test depends on real host networking and will panic in a fully offline/loopback-only sandbox.
routing_aware_lan_bind_address_for_targetopens a realUdpSocket, binds it, andconnect()s to192.0.2.42:8009to ask the kernel which local address it would route through. That's a legitimate way to test routing selection, but it means this test's pass/fail depends on the test-runner's network configuration rather than on the code under test: on a host/container with only a loopback interface and no default route (some hardened CI runners, some sandboxes),local_addr()after a UDP "connect" can still succeed even without a real route in some OSes, but on others the initialconnect()can fail if there's no route to a non-local destination at all, and.expect(...)here would panic rather than fail as a normal assertion. Worth double-checking this is stable across whatever CI image actually runscargo testfor this repo (e.g., does it always have a non-loopback interface with a default route?) — if there's any chance it doesn't, consider skipping the test when no LAN interface is present rather than assertingSome(..)unconditionally.Low severity — noting for awareness, not blocking, since the PR states tests are locally green and this environment (and this review sandbox) both did have a real LAN interface.