Fix VideoScheduler to set client_sequence_number in video packets.

Fix VideoScheduler to set client_sequence_number in video packets.

Not setting client_sequence_number breaks latency calculation. Previously
the scheduler was setting sequence_number filed instead.

BUG=247863
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=205089

[Wez, 2013-06-08 20:57:25]

lgtm

We should follow-up with a CL to make the naming of the |sequence_number_|
member consistent with the proto |client_sequence_number| field, and perhaps
re-name the proto's |sequence_number| to |packet_sequence_number| for clarity.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-08 20:57:34]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sergeyu@chromium.org/15994021/1

[Sergey Ulanov, 2013-06-08 23:41:53]

On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:57 PM, <wez@chromium.org> wrote:

> lgtm
>
> We should follow-up with a CL to make the naming of the |sequence_number_|
> member consistent with the proto |client_sequence_number| field, and
> perhaps
> re-name the proto's |sequence_number| to |packet_sequence_number| for
> clarity.
>

I agree. client_sequence_number is not really a sequence number. It's just
a timestamp of the last event received from the client, so it should be
called something like last_event_timestamp. Also, I think sequence_number
field in the VideoPacket protobuf isn't actually used, so we should
deprecate it.



>
>
https://codereview.chromium.**org/15994021/<https://codereview.chromium.org/1...
>

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-08 23:58:40]

Change committed as 205089

[Wez, 2013-06-09 05:42:49]

IIRC originally the client sequence number is not a timestamp, but the
sequence number of the most recent input event received before the current
capture was taken; if it's currently a timestamp then that's a client
implementation detail and not necessary something we should call out at the
protocol level.


On 8 June 2013 16:41, Sergey Ulanov <sergeyu@chromium.org> wrote:

>
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:57 PM, <wez@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> lgtm
>>
>> We should follow-up with a CL to make the naming of the |sequence_number_|
>> member consistent with the proto |client_sequence_number| field, and
>> perhaps
>> re-name the proto's |sequence_number| to |packet_sequence_number| for
>> clarity.
>>
>
> I agree. client_sequence_number is not really a sequence number. It's just
> a timestamp of the last event received from the client, so it should be
> called something like last_event_timestamp. Also, I think sequence_number
> field in the VideoPacket protobuf isn't actually used, so we should
> deprecate it.
>
>
>
>>
>>
https://codereview.chromium.**org/15994021/<https://codereview.chromium.org/1...
>>
>
>