From 7925dd575fb99fed90c8702a2215078a62676b24 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "holmer@google.com" Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:37:23 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Added comments and an assert explaining that NACK hasn't been fully implemented in the mt_rx_tx_test. Review URL: http://webrtc-codereview.appspot.com/25018 git-svn-id: http://webrtc.googlecode.com/svn/trunk@79 4adac7df-926f-26a2-2b94-8c16560cd09d --- modules/video_coding/main/test/mt_rx_tx_test.cc | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/modules/video_coding/main/test/mt_rx_tx_test.cc b/modules/video_coding/main/test/mt_rx_tx_test.cc index 4c3176546f..8d4d782573 100644 --- a/modules/video_coding/main/test/mt_rx_tx_test.cc +++ b/modules/video_coding/main/test/mt_rx_tx_test.cc @@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ int MTRxTxTest(CmdArgs& args) WebRtc_Word32 numberOfCores = 1; // error resilience/network + // Nack support is currently not implemented in this test. bool nackEnabled = false; bool fecEnabled = false; WebRtc_UWord8 rttMS = 20; @@ -216,6 +217,8 @@ int MTRxTxTest(CmdArgs& args) vcm->RegisterProtectionCallback(&protectionCallback); outgoingTransport->SetLossPct(lossRate); + // Nack support is currently not implemented in this test + assert(nackEnabled == false); vcm->SetVideoProtection(kProtectionNack, nackEnabled); vcm->SetVideoProtection(kProtectionFEC, fecEnabled);