Closed Bug 860663 Opened 7 years ago Closed 7 years ago
[Bluetooth][Certification]HFP PTS test TC
_AG _OCM _BV _01 _I test case fail
Memory dialing does not correctly support. ATD>1 does not support.
Summary: [Bluetooth][HFP]TC_AG_OCM_BV_01_I test case fail → [Bluetooth][PTS][HFP]TC_AG_OCM_BV_01_I test case fail
Summary: [Bluetooth][PTS][HFP]TC_AG_OCM_BV_01_I test case fail → [Bluetooth][Certification]TC_AG_OCM_BV_01_I test case fail
blocking-b2g: --- → leo?
Nominate as a leo+ since we got inquiry from leo.
Assignee: nobody → shuang
Summary: [Bluetooth][Certification]TC_AG_OCM_BV_01_I test case fail → [Bluetooth][Certification]HFP PTS test TC_AG_OCM_BV_01_I test case fail
This needs more context - what's the user impact if left unfixed?
I think this patch is for hfp certification. In the current implementation, we reply "ERROR" whenever Bluetooth Headset send memory dialing command (ex. ATD>1) to us. However, we don't support memory dialing in Dialer app and Shawn is trying to replace the memory dialing request with redial request. This is an workaround, but should be helpful for certification.
Comment on attachment 736686 [details] [diff] [review] Bug 860663 Implement memory dialing Review of attachment 736686 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Some details from BLUETOOTH SPECIFICATION Hands-free Profile 1.6, 4.19 Memory Dialing from the HF. 1. If there is no number stored for the memory location given by the HF, the AG shall respond with ERROR. 2. If the AG supports the "Three-way calling" feature and if a call is already ongoing in the AG, performing this procedure shall result in a new call being placed to a third party with the current ongoing call put on hold. I'd like to point out something here. For point 1, how can we verify whether the memory location given by HF is valid or not? Since we don't support memory dialing feature in Dialer app, no way for us to verity that for sure. I would suggest to write a comment here, and we can go back to implement this part someday. For point 2, luckily, the behaviour of current Dialer app is exactly the same with what the spec describes.
Triage 4/12 - Leo+ for certification.
blocking-b2g: leo? → leo+
Hi Wayne, This required to change dialer app to support memory dialing. Please help to check this is required to have leo+ in the triage meeting.
blocking-b2g: leo+ → leo?
needinfo on ffos-product for comment 9
Memory dialing in the dialer app is not in scope for leo. Given this, I suspect that a waiver can be given for this feature via BlueTooth. Please confirm during triage with leo partner.
Discussed in triage - leo will discuss with QE engineers about the need for a waiver here.
blocking-b2g: leo? → -
Any update? Also, we can expect this also happened with tef line.
Dear Mozilla Team, I know that memory dialing is not supported in leo. So this HFP case was replaced by the last dial for bluetooth certification and there is no problem. Thanks.
Base on Comment 14, re-nominate leo?
blocking-b2g: - → leo?
this is needed for tef to pass BT cert. tef?
I don't understand comment 14 as a request to block on this one but rather the opposite. Can you please clarify if this should be a blocker for certification or not?
Base on Comment 5 and Comment 14, for certification, we have to use last number redial to implement memory dialing feature. No discussion space here.
Set due date as IOT1
Target Milestone: --- → 1.0.1 IOT1 (10may)
We moved patch to Bug 869296. Once Bug 869296 fixed, this bug also get fixed. Bug 869296 is going to review process.
Depends on: 869296
(In reply to Shawn Huang from comment #20) > We moved patch to Bug 869296. Once Bug 869296 fixed, this bug also get > fixed. Bug 869296 is going to review process. I think duping to bug 869296 is the right call in that case.
Bug 869296 is fixed now, marking this one fixed as well.
Unable to verify. Lack of resources. Need Bluetooth PTS tool to verify. Marking as QARegressExclude.
Whiteboard: [status: will be fixed by bug 869296] → [status: will be fixed by bug 869296] QARegressExclude
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.