Branching Scenario - Auto Play issues

Description

If the first content is an Interactive Video and Auto-play is enabled the audio of the video plays in the title screen. The preceding video's audio and the next video's audio overlaps when you open a branching question. The audio of the preceding video keeps playing when you go to the next video. This only happens if auto-play is enabled for both videos.

Acceptance Criteria

  1. When autoplay is enabled videos should start playing when they become viewable

  2. Videos should always stop playing when the choice box is opened or when the user navigates away from the page the video is on

  3. Remember that this must also be true for videos or interactive videos that are inside Course Presentations

Test Contents:

https://bv-demo.h5p.com/content/1291099056533162419
https://bv-demo.h5p.com/content/1291099078782178109

Environment

Tested in the following browsers:

Chrome: 84.0.4147.135 (Official Build) (64-bit)
Firefox: 79.0 (64-bit)
Edge: 84.0.522.63 (Official build) (64-bit)

Acceptance Criteria

None

Activity

Show:
Thomas Marstrander
September 7, 2020, 3:11 PM

it’s a quite messy interface, but it works well

Pål Jørgensen
September 11, 2020, 11:04 AM

and I don’t think this issue should ever have gone through review. We’re using internals from CP in Branching Scenario, and it’s not even a comment about it. This is doomed to fail at some point, and I don’t see any reason to make spaghetti here. Why don’t we just add two public functions in CP to pause and play media? Even if we do that, we wouldn’t need a minor-bump (since we check for the existence of these functions anyway).

Frode Petterson
September 11, 2020, 12:00 PM

I understood this issue as a surgical hotfix that had to go out asap. We’ve not redefined the contracts or refactored how media playback works/interacts between parent and child. CP never had support for this, so yes this fix is a quickfix/hack. Adding it into the CP API would only increase the risk of others using it and we being stuck with it and not being able to create a proper contract solution later.
But do feel free to improve this and retest everything if you feel that is necessary.

Pål Jørgensen
September 14, 2020, 9:05 AM
  • You have redefined the contract - that is the problem.

  • The problem is that these kind of hacks makes it very hard being a release mngr, since internal changes in the data structures of CP, means bumping the minor version.

  • I don’t see any reason doing this using proper functions in CP, since we have to release CP anyways.

Frode Petterson
September 14, 2020, 9:59 AM

I’ve discussed this with PO and we need to get this fix out now as there are many waiting for it. I’ve created a new issue with high priority in the next sprint for planning how this should be solved, ideally via Core since we’ll be seeing this in more and more content types. I’m guess this is not handled in IB either?

Assignee

Frode Petterson

Reporter

Bienvenido Villadelrey

Labels

None

Funding

None

Code reviewer

None

Released

None

Time tracking

0m

Fix versions

Sprint

None

Priority

Medium
Configure