890754 - When the SMS sender field doesn't contain a number, a "random" contact entry is shown instead

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 886764

(Firefox OS Graveyard :: Gaia::SMS, defect)

Description

[Robert Kaiser]

I regularly get SMS from certain services that send a service name instead of a sender phone number, looking into the SMS DB, I see e.g. "Raiffeisen", "car2go Wien", or "AnrufInfo" in the "sender" field there.

Apparently, if that value does not contain a number, we end up displaying a "random" contact entry in the SMS app (actually, it looks like it's the first entry in the telMatch index of the contacts DB, having a "" key there, and in my case that's the EU Emergency Call number 112 - so it looks like my electronic banking codes come from the emergency call *g*).
If you have the SMS thread open and you tap on the contact header, the Activity screen for "Call" or "Send message" actually shows the correct and original sender name - but then, in such a case where the sender isn't a phone number, we probably should not open that Activity at all.

I first was confused because "Raiffeisen" and "AnrufInfo" ended up this way, but "car2go Wien" was displayed correctly, but I guess we do call some number conversion function that comes out non-empty for "car2go Wien" because of the "2" in the name and comes out empty for the others, triggering this behavior.

I'm seeing this on 1.2 from today on my Peak right now. I have pulled off the databases from my phone (using Ben Turner's indexedDB browser add-on to find out the values I'm giving here) and I can have a developer have a look at them if needed, but I won't publish them as there's personal info including (expired) banking codes in there. I also can take screen shots if required, just let me know.

Comment 1

[Julien Wajsberg [:julienw]]

I think Bug 886764 is the same bug.

Thanks for the complete description, this helps a lot !

Comment 2

[Robert Kaiser]

(In reply to Julien Wajsberg [:julienw] from comment #1)
> I think Bug 886764 is the same bug.

I didn't think so because it's sending vs. received, and sending to an invalid address is surely pretty rare, while getting SMS from services is common, but maybe you're right. I hope my details help whoever is working on this. IMHO, this here could even qualify for a blocker, while the description in the other bug very probably doesn't, so I'd be tempted to say it should be duped the other way round...

Comment 3

[Julien Wajsberg [:julienw]]

The other bug is already a blocker ;-)

Comment 4

[Robert Kaiser]

(In reply to Julien Wajsberg [:julienw] from comment #3)
> The other bug is already a blocker ;-)

yay!

(I hope one solution will be the right thing for both cases - and maybe the question I raised on showing that Activity at all on tapping that title can be addressed at the same time)