Closed Bug 1094730 Opened 9 years ago Closed 9 years ago
.1][Contacts] after merging a new contact with ICE contacts, the setting of ICE contacts will be cleared .
[1.Description]: ICE contacts setting will be cleared when you add a new contact which has the same phone number as ICE contacts and merge them. Found time:02:37 Attachments:logcat_0237.txt,VIDEO_0237.mp4 [2.Testing Steps]: 1.Launch Contacts and set a ICE contact **You can see the ICE contacts is set on top and it has a special mark 2.Add a new contacts that has same number as ICE contacts **DUT will find a duplicates number and prompt user merge it 3.Tap merge button 4.Bact to catacts and check ICE number [3.Expected Result]: 2.DUT will prompt user number is the same as ICE number, if you excute merge, the ICE number settings will be cleared or 4.ICE number will be modified to new [4.Actual Result]: 4.ICE contacts setting will be cleared [5.Reproduction build]: Gaia-Rev 154da5e17029a51002d5d9b7df39563d509edde6 Gecko-Rev https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g34_v2_1/rev/3b0c3580a58d Build-ID 20141105001204 Version 34.0 Device-Name flame FW-Release 4.4.2 FW-Incremental eng.cltbld.20141105.035314 FW-Date Wed Nov 5 03:53:26 EST 2014 Bootloader L1TC00011880 [6.Reproduction Frequency]: Always Recurrence,5/5
Assignee: nobody → jmcf
Target Milestone: --- → 2.1 S9 (21Nov)
triage: non-blocking. Ni to UX: we may need notification to end user.
blocking-b2g: 2.2? → backlog
Carrie, I'm actively fixing this bug by following an approach that makes the merge transparent to the user i.e. the user will never lose her ICE Settings .i.e if an ICE Contact merges with a new incoming contact the resulting contact will be automatically promoted to ICE Contact. The rationale for doing so is that, when we merge, the tel numbers are always kept. Then it makes sense to set the merged contact as ICE Contact, as from that moment on it will be the one which owns the tel number involved. Please confirm that you agree with the approach described above thanks!
Hi Jose, Yes the rule makes sense to me. Sounds great! Thanks!
Comment on attachment 8522913 [details] 26067.html Super complete patch. Incredible work here Jose. I've just left some nits on github, but once they are addressed this should get in ASAP.
Attachment #8522913 - Flags: review?(francisco) → review+
Jose could you record a video for the sprint planning demo? https://wiki.mozilla.org/Gaia/Contacts/Scrum/2.1S9#Demos
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
(In reply to Francisco Jordano [:arcturus] [:francisco] from comment #7) > Jose could you record a video for the sprint planning demo? > > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Gaia/Contacts/Scrum/2.1S9#Demos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4nZrJ3ZsZQ (credits go to Adrian)
Hi Mike, According to comment 8, this patch is uplift on master, and this issue is verified successfully on Flame 2.2, but this issue is still existed on Flame 2.1 Could you help with it? Thanks! Flame 2.1 found time:14:37 See attachment: video_v2.2.MP4 and logcat_v2.1_1437.txt and video_v2.1.MP4 Flame 2.1 rate:5/5 Flame 2.2 rate:0/5 Flame 2.1 build: Gaia-Rev 6957ac8a322234ec99c8abb7cc18dc6a2e0176db Gecko-Rev https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g34_v2_1/rev/6600eba54256 Build-ID 20150114001300 Version 34.0 Device-Name flame FW-Release 4.4.2 FW-Incremental eng.cltbld.20150114.035135 FW-Date Wed Jan 14 03:51:46 EST 2015 Bootloader L1TC000118D0 Flame 2.2 build: Gaia-Rev 7c5b27cad370db377b18a742d3f3fdb0070e899f Gecko-Rev https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g37_v2_2/rev/748b20315f75 Build-ID 20150114002502 Version 37.0a2 Device-Name flame FW-Release 4.4.2 FW-Incremental eng.cltbld.20150114.040029 FW-Date Wed Jan 14 04:00:40 EST 2015 Bootloader L1TC000118D0
I will open a new bug to tracing Flame 2.1
Comment on attachment 8549405 [details] logcat_v2.1_1437.txt Hi Mike, Do we need open a new bug to tracing this bug on Flame 2.1?
(In reply to Sue from comment #13) > Comment on attachment 8549405 [details] > logcat_v2.1_1437.txt > > Hi Mike, > Do we need open a new bug to tracing this bug on Flame 2.1? No, we only need uplift this patch to v2.1
Hi Jose, do you think this patch low risky ecough to uplift to v2.1?
(In reply to Mike Lien[:mlien] from comment #15) > Hi Jose, do you think this patch low risky ecough to uplift to v2.1? sorry for typo: ^enough
Well, it is a big patch and if I recall correctly it might depend on other patches, which could not be on 2.1. On the other hand the functionality has been reasonably well tested and includes marionnette tests. I would try a direct uplift and if the patch does not apply in v2.1 We would give up, provided there is no a strong requirement on having it fixed, of course. thanks!
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.