Fix qualityLevels setup for video with source

[ddunkin]

Description

If a player is created from a <video> with a <source>, qualityLevels integration is not set up.

Specific Changes proposed

videojs.players[playerId] is not set yet when setupQualityLevels_ is called, but the player is already associated with the tag. Use the videojs function to get the player instead.

Requirements Checklist

• Feature implemented / Bug fixed
• If necessary, more likely in a feature request than a bug fix
  • Unit Tests updated or fixed
  • Docs/guides updated
  • Example created (starter template on JSBin)
• Reviewed by Two Core Contributors

[mjneil]

Thanks for catching this bug and submitting a fix for it!

After some conversation with @gkatsev, videojs.players[playerId] should be set and how we should be access the player. It seems that since the Hls object is registered as a component, it gets initiated when the tech is created before videojs.players[playerId] is set. Calling videojs(playerId) to access the player before it is finished initializing could potentially cause a errors or a re-initialization of the player. Can you update your PR so that setupQualityLevels_ isn't called until the ready event is fired by the tech (or use tech.ready(callback). This should fix the issue and avoid any potential unwanted side effects.

[gkatsev]

I don't think you need .bind(this). Video.js takes care of that for you.

[gkatsev]

er, wait, never mind. Ignore me. However, we shouldn't use .bind because it's slow and doesn't run everywhere where we want to run.
You should be able to use an arrow function instead.

[ddunkin]

Ha, I used an arrow function then changed it to bind because I saw it used elsewhere.

[ddunkin]

There's a call to videojs() in the HlsHandler constructor.

videojs-contrib-hls/src/videojs-contrib-hls.js

Line 320 in 407d41d

let _player = videojs(tech.options_.playerId);

Is that also problematic for the reasons above?

[mjneil]

I do believe for the same reasons that call could also be problematic, but for the purposes of this PR let's not worry about it. It'll be better to investigate that separately.

This looks good to me

[ddunkin]

@gkatsev I made the requested changes. Does it look good?