Check for closed receiver before setting up rid

[boks1971]

[Sean-Der]

@boks1971 is it possible to get a test/reproduce for this behavior?

[boks1971]

@boks1971 is it possible to get a test/reproduce for this behavior?

Unfortunately, I do not have a specific repro. Happens in production in a larg(ish) call (40 - 50 participants) and they are subscribing to 60 - 80 tracks each and they are connecting from possibly poorer networks.

I have been trying to get a definitive proof, but also looking all around for possible places. This one seemed like one possible option as a lot of objects created by buffer factory are leaking.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

:x: Patch coverage is 76.47059% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review. :white_check_mark: Project coverage is 84.32%. Comparing base (1519afa) to head (4aadfe8).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
rtpreceiver.go	76.47%	2 Missing and 2 partials :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3290      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   84.47%   84.32%   -0.15%     
==========================================
  Files          80       80              
  Lines        9279     9293      +14     
==========================================
- Hits         7838     7836       -2     
- Misses       1020     1029       +9     
- Partials      421      428       +7     

Flag	Coverage Δ
go	84.32% <76.47%> (-0.15%)	:arrow_down:

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

:rocket: New features to boost your workflow:

• :snowflake: Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• :package: JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.