update: allow starting new views with videoChange without changing AVPlayerItem
#258
Conversation
| @@ -1232,6 +1247,9 @@ - (BOOL) doubleValueIsEqual:(NSNumber *) x toOther:(NSNumber *) n { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| - (void)didTriggerManualVideoChange { | |||
| // TODO: Should we deprecate? we no longer need this method. videoChange can happen whenever it's needed now, not just when AVPlayerItem changes | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Strong +1 to deprecate
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If keeping this functionality around makes sense we could also expose a better named API with the same functionality while deprecating this one. (And we'd drop the deprecated method in the next major version bump.)
…o items, this is more close to the real-world usage
| } | ||
|
|
||
| [self.playDispatchDelegate videoChangedForPlayer:_name]; | ||
| // TODO: test that we have all the metadata we need on the subsequent view. On android we needed to catch up with the current state |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this refer to external stuff like MUXSDKCustomerData or something else?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The customer data, and also more general things like the private stuff in the player binding
I saw some odd stuff with playhead time during the subsequent views after changing, so I think there might still be something to clear. It could be here or in the player binding (edit: oops, here or in the stores I mean), I'm not really sure
| @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ FOUNDATION_EXPORT | |||
|
|
|||
| */ | |||
| + (void)videoChangeForPlayer:(nonnull NSString *)name | |||
| withCustomerData:(nullable MUXSDKCustomerData *)customerData; | |||
| withCustomerData:(nonnull MUXSDKCustomerData *)customerData; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a breaking change and requires a major version bump. Particularly for Swift callers.
I'm not sure if it's absolutely required too implement the required functionality in this PR, though. Based on everything else here I don't feel like it is?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point. I don't need to make this nullable.
No description provided.