Closed
Bug 1108833
Opened 11 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
Inconsistent display of unread notifications on lockscreen between lock/unlock and restart of device
Categories
(Firefox OS Graveyard :: Gaia::System::Lockscreen, defect)
Tracking
(blocking-b2g:-, b2g-v2.1 affected, b2g-v2.2 affected)
RESOLVED
INVALID
| blocking-b2g | - |
People
(Reporter: pcheng, Assigned: gweng)
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
|
376.57 KB,
text/plain
|
Details |
Description:
The device does not display a notification on the lockscreen if user receives a notification while the device is awake, as opposed to when device is rebooted, notification is then displayed on lockscreen.
Additionally, the options in Settings app > Notifications don't seem to affect anything in this use case.
STR:
1) Receive an SMS (or any form of notification) notification on DUT while DUT is awake
- observe SMS notification pops up and retracts into a thin blue line on top. Do not clear the notification.
2) Press hardware power button twice to lock and unlock the device
- observe there is NO lockscreen notification displayed
3) Long-press the power button and "Restart"
- observe there IS lockscreen notification after restart
Expected: Observations from step 2 and step 3 are consistent
Actual: See step 2 & 3's inconsistent observations.
Notes:
1) Repro rate: 3/3
2) Attaching a logcat
3) Tested on:
Device: Flame 2.2 Master (shallow flash, 319MB mem)
BuildID: 20141208123406
Gaia: bd4dcc8c4582e2368b47b0e62506d3031fb2fc09
Gecko: cfeda36af765
Version: 37.0a1 (2.2 Master)
Firmware: V188-1
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Mobile; rv:37.0) Gecko/37.0 Firefox/37.0
| Reporter | ||
Updated•11 years ago
|
QA Whiteboard: [QAnalyst-Triage?]
status-b2g-v2.2:
--- → affected
Flags: needinfo?(jmitchell)
OS: Linux → Gonk (Firefox OS)
Hardware: x86 → ARM
Comment 1•11 years ago
|
||
QA-Wanted for Branch Checks
| Reporter | ||
Comment 2•11 years ago
|
||
This issue also occurs on Flame 2.1. Following STR, step 2 doesn't display a notification on lockscreen but step 3 does.
Device: Flame 2.1
BuildID: 20141208070634
Gaia: e81d3e7590ad63113baaffd154fcfa73fc297499
Gecko: 199d127fbeae
Version: 34.0 (2.1)
Firmware: V188-1
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Mobile; rv:34.0) Gecko/34.0 Firefox/34.0
---------------
This issue does NOT occur on Flame 2.0. Following STR, step 2 and step 3 both don't display a notification on lockscreen. Since the notification bar/tray refactor isn't implemented in 2.0, I'm not setting 2.0 tracking flag and not marking it a regression.
Device: Flame 2.0
BuildID: 20141208061237
Gaia: 856863962362030174bae4e03d59c3ebbc182473
Gecko: 2d0860bd0225
Version: 32.0 (2.0)
Firmware: V188-1
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Mobile; rv:32.0) Gecko/32.0 Firefox/32.0
QA Whiteboard: [QAnalyst-Triage?]
status-b2g-v2.1:
--- → affected
Flags: needinfo?(jmitchell)
Keywords: qawanted
Comment 3•11 years ago
|
||
Nomming for 2.2 - seems too late to nom for 2.1 but this seems like some expected functionality that we should fix.
blocking-b2g: --- → 2.2?
QA Whiteboard: [QAnalyst-Triage?] → [QAnalyst-Triage+]
Flags: needinfo?(jmitchell)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 5•11 years ago
|
||
Howie: Luke reminded me this is probably by-design: if user receive notification while it's "unlocked" (let's get rid of the confused "awake" in STR"), it's *should not* display on LockScreen, which is correct. And the seconds case, the system resending notifications after rebooting, is also correct. So this may be not a valid bug.
Summary:
1. *without* LockScreen, received notifications *would NOT* display on LockScreen after pressing the power button twice
2. system *should* resend all unread notifications on LockScreen after rebooting
3. without unlocking, notifications on LockScreen *should* stay on the screen, no matter how you press the power button
If there is a inconsistent consideration we should NI UX for more information.
Flags: needinfo?(hochang)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 6•11 years ago
|
||
And unfortunately Howie is OOO.
Comment 7•11 years ago
|
||
Thanks Greg, remove the blocking status until further clarification.
Hi Rob, can you check if this is by design based on Comment 5? Thank you.
blocking-b2g: 2.2+ → 2.2?
Flags: needinfo?(hochang) → needinfo?(rmacdonald)
Comment 8•11 years ago
|
||
Since Rob will be away for a while, ni Tiffanie for help, thanks.
Flags: needinfo?(rmacdonald) → needinfo?(tshakespeare)
Comment 9•11 years ago
|
||
Hello!
I'm not going to be super helpful on this one so I'm passing the buck. Francis, Gordon, or Jacqueline should be able to help out.
Thanks!
Flags: needinfo?(tshakespeare)
Flags: needinfo?(jsavory)
Flags: needinfo?(gbrander)
Flags: needinfo?(fdjabri)
Comment 10•11 years ago
|
||
I'm afraid I can't find any relevant specs for this behavior on box, so I can't comment definitively, but this sounds like correct behaviour. Rob is back, so passing back over to him.
Flags: needinfo?(rmacdonald)
Flags: needinfo?(jsavory)
Flags: needinfo?(gbrander)
Flags: needinfo?(fdjabri)
Comment 11•11 years ago
|
||
Triage: still waiting for UX feedback.
Comment 12•11 years ago
|
||
I actually think we can take the assumption of comment 5 as a valid interpretation of the "correct" behavior and close this bug as INVALID.
Comment 13•11 years ago
|
||
Triage: agree INVALID as comment 5
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
blocking-b2g: 2.2? → -
Closed: 11 years ago
Flags: needinfo?(rmacdonald)
Resolution: --- → INVALID
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•