1146741 - [NFC][2.1] NFC cannot work

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(Firefox OS Graveyard :: NFC, defect)

Description

[Alison Shiue]

Attachment: flame_21.log

Gaia-Rev        13c85d57f49b4bfd657ff674f2b530c141c94803
Gecko-Rev       https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g34_v2_1/rev/3bf50b77e441
Build-ID        20150323161204
Version         34.0
Device-Name     flame
FW-Release      4.4.2
FW-Incremental  eng.cltbld.20150323.193109
FW-Date         Mon Mar 23 19:31:18 EDT 2015
Bootloader      L1TC100118D0

STR:
1. Enable NFC in settings
2. Tap NFC tag which contains URL on test device

Expected result:
Test device open the URL

Actual result:
Nothing happened

Comment 1

[Alison Shiue]

[Blocking Requested - why for this release]:
Short stopper issue

Comment 2

[Dimi Lee [:dimi]]

Hi Thomas,
This issue is the same as bug 1143528, could you also help fix in 2.1 ? Thanks

Comment 3

[Wesley Huang [:wesley_huang] (EPM) (NI me)]

triage: 
basic function not working

Comment 4

[Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz]]

Attachment: Github pull request for b2g-manifest (v2.1)

Comment 5

[Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz]]

Attachment: Github pull request for b2g-manifest (v2.1s)

Comment 6

[Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz]]

Attachment: Github pull request for b2g-manifest (v2.0)

Comment 7

[Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz]]

I also updated other old branches. Hopefully this covers all relevant cases.

Comment 8

[Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz]]

Not sure how to test this on try...

Comment 9

[Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]]

Travis failures on the PRs - known? Also, approval?

Comment 10

[Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz]]

[Blocking Requested - why for this release]:

The oldest version with NFC seems 2.0. The device repository for 2.0 and later on flame-kk all point to the same git branch. [1] We recently applied bug 1109592 for B2G master, but that is incompatible with older releases. The old releases won't have working NFC.

The attached patches set the device repository for older branches to fixed revisions, so they won't be affected by changes to master.

[1] https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/device-flame/tree/kitkat

Comment 11

[Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz]]

Comment on attachment 8582275 [details] [review]
Github pull request for b2g-manifest (v2.1)

[Approval Request Comment]
Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): 

  Bug 1109592

User impact if declined: 

  NFC won't work on older releases. Please see comment 10 for a details explanation.

Testing completed: 

  Tested locally.

Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): 

  Low. Makes build scripts checkout a specific, existing revision of a repository.

String or UUID changes made by this patch:

  None.

Comment 12

[Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz]]

Comment on attachment 8582276 [details] [review]
Github pull request for b2g-manifest (v2.1s)

[Approval Request Comment]
Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): 

  Bug 1109592

User impact if declined: 

  NFC won't work on older releases. Please see comment 10 for a details explanation.

Testing completed: 

  Tested locally.

Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): 

  Low. Makes build scripts checkout a specific, existing revision of a repository.

String or UUID changes made by this patch:

  None.

Comment 13

[Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz]]

Comment on attachment 8582277 [details] [review]
Github pull request for b2g-manifest (v2.0)

[Approval Request Comment]
Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): 

  Bug 1109592

User impact if declined: 

  NFC won't work on older releases. Please see comment 10 for a details explanation.

Testing completed: 

  Tested locally.

Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): 

  Low. Makes build scripts checkout a specific, existing revision of a repository.

String or UUID changes made by this patch:

  None.

Comment 14

[Wesley Huang [:wesley_huang] (EPM) (NI me)]

ni to Bhavana for triaging whether we should take this in 2.0.

Comment 15

[bhavana bajaj [:bajaj]]

I am curious, on how did we decide to land something and be fine to break it on older releases without even realizing or having thought this through ? Was there nothing we could to impact older releases?

Comment 16

[Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz]]

(In reply to bhavana bajaj [:bajaj] from comment #15)
> I am curious, on how did we decide to land something and be fine to break it
> on older releases without even realizing or having thought this through ?
> Was there nothing we could to impact older releases?

Sorry about all these problems with older branches.

The affected repo 'device-flame' was originally created for JellyBean. Consequently, all the v2.* branches are for JB. When the Flame was ported to Kitkat, a new branch 'kitkat' was created and used for all versions: master and v2.*. And the Kitkat manifest files also referred to this branch, rather than a Git commit hash. I didn't realize this at first, so all the v2.* branches got changes from master without having the corresponding patches of other repositories.

For the future, I think we should either create new repositories when devices get ported to new Android versions (e.g., device-flame-kk, nexus-4-kk, etc), or have separate v* branches for the individual versions (e.g., v2.2-jb, v2.2-kk, etc).

Comment 17

[Naoki Hirata :nhirata (please use needinfo instead of cc)]

Thomas, that would mean that we would have to have 3.0-L-flame 3.0-L-nexus 5... is this what you're proposing?

multiple branching based on gecko version is going to become a mess...

Is there any other solutions?

Comment 18

[Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz]]

It's not as bad as you think.

We already have an individual repository for each devices, each would contain branches 3.0-l, 3.0-kk, 3.0-jb etc.

Another solution is to introduce a new device repository when devices get ported to a new Android version. There would be repositories device_flame-l, device_flame-kk, etc., each with branches for 3.0, 2.2, 2.1, etc.

Comment 19

[Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz]]

Bhavana, is there anything missing for the (dis-)approval of the 2.0 patch?

Comment 20

[Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]]

v2.1:  https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/b2g-manifest/commit/8f1eb686a2a7364277a942472baeb942dcdb700a
v2.1s: https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/b2g-manifest/commit/38cf00ea2cb69fc3127896ccc5acc311a9887019

Comment 21

[bhavana bajaj [:bajaj]]

(In reply to Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz] from comment #19)
> Bhavana, is there anything missing for the (dis-)approval of the 2.0 patch?

nope, was waiting answer for my original question, got it a+ed now.

Comment 22

[bhavana bajaj [:bajaj]]

(In reply to Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz] from comment #18)
> It's not as bad as you think.
> 
> We already have an individual repository for each devices, each would
> contain branches 3.0-l, 3.0-kk, 3.0-jb etc.
> 
> Another solution is to introduce a new device repository when devices get
> ported to a new Android version. There would be repositories device_flame-l,
> device_flame-kk, etc., each with branches for 3.0, 2.2, 2.1, etc.
I am still not sure if this is the best way to go especially for QA testing, we discussed this in a team meeting and had several questions around how this affects our workflow and scalability. So can we have an email/ meet-up to discuss your proposal ? It would be good to include a point person from engg, who is going to make this decision?

Comment 23

[Naoki Hirata :nhirata (please use needinfo instead of cc)]

Thomas, my concern rises that QA are often asked to do regression hunting on different versions.  
We would have to track when these changes occurred and the validity of the builds based on this change.

When you add versioning difference like : 3.0-L-flame 3.0-L-nexus 5 it causes more complexity.

Your second proposal of branching, if I understood things right, is that we have branch differences of the manifest : https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/b2g-manifest ; we already have...  don't we?

My thought was also can we have an appropriate driver selection based on the gecko version similar to a Android SK check that we do on the gecko layer at build time?

Comment 24

[Ken Chang[:kenkai]]

Thomas is providing the feedback.

Comment 25

[Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz]]

Hi Bhavana,

Sure, feel free to include me in a meeting. I'm in CEST time zone. But I'm not in a position to make *any* official statement for devs. I suggest to invite mwu as well.

Comment 26

[Thomas Zimmermann [:tzimmermann] [:tdz]]

Hi Naoki,

I fully understand your concerns about workload.

If you look at the manifest repository, [1] you'll find a branch for each release. And if you look at a device-specific repository, such as device-flame, [2] you'll also find a branch for each release.

The problem in device-flame is that all these release branches only work for JB versions (as build with './config.sh flame'). For KK versions (build with './config.sh flame-kk'), there is only a single branch 'kitkat', which is used for all releases. Committing into this branch affects all releases of flame-kk.

QA doesn't do active development. (right?) So in the end, I don't think that workload for QA will increase. It's mostly just a matter of which repositories/branches the scripts will use.

[1] https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/b2g-manifest
[2] https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/device-flame

Comment 27

[Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]]

v2.0: https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/b2g-manifest/commit/b24a1adec5a19643bc124f7cd748f9a5e2d5f90f

Comment 28

[Alison Shiue]

Verified on:
[2.0]
Build ID               20150413160203
Gaia Revision          84898cadf28b1a1fcd03b726cff658de470282f0
Gaia Date              2015-04-03 21:42:36
Gecko Revision         https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g32_v2_0/rev/de92ad41847a
Gecko Version          32.0
Device Name            flame
Firmware(Release)      4.4.2
Firmware(Incremental)  eng.cltbld.20150413.191912
Firmware Date          Mon Apr 13 19:19:23 EDT 2015
Bootloader             L1TC100118D0

[2.1]
Build ID               20150413161209
Gaia Revision          bbe983b4e8bebfec26b3726b79568a22d667223c
Gaia Date              2015-04-09 13:52:48
Gecko Revision         https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g34_v2_1/rev/3e3cbe35bce3
Gecko Version          34.0
Device Name            flame
Firmware(Release)      4.4.2
Firmware(Incremental)  eng.cltbld.20150413.193739
Firmware Date          Mon Apr 13 19:37:50 EDT 2015
Bootloader             L1TC000118D0

William, could you help verify this issue on 2.1S? Thanks!

Comment 29

[William Hsu [:whsu]]

(In reply to Alison Shiue from comment #28)
> 
> William, could you help verify this issue on 2.1S? Thanks!

I would like to help on this bug.
But, Dolphin (v2.1s) didn't have NFC module.

So, it shouldn't effect Dolphin device.
Thanks.