Closed Bug 894270 Opened 11 years ago Closed 11 years ago

[Buri][Call hold]The call hold screen display wrong.

Categories

(Firefox OS Graveyard :: Gaia::Dialer, defect, P1)

defect

Tracking

(blocking-b2g:koi+, b2g-v1.2 fixed)

RESOLVED FIXED
1.2 C3(Oct25)
blocking-b2g koi+
Tracking Status
b2g-v1.2 --- fixed

People

(Reporter: sync-1, Assigned: rexboy)

References

Details

(Whiteboard: [u=commsapps-user c=dialer p=0] [status: waiting for conf-call to be completed and then verify])

Attachments

(3 files, 1 obsolete file)

AU_LINUX_GECKO_ICS_STRAWBERRY.01.01.00.019.152 Firefox os v1.1 Mozilla build ID:20130702230206 Created an attachment (id=459501) pic DEFECT DESCRIPTION: [Call hold]The call hold screen display wrong. REPRODUCING PROCEDURES: 1.Enable call waiting 2.establish a call with A and B. 3.C make a call to A,A hold the call,swap the call between B and C. 4.the picture is not swap--KO1 5.there is no call number and time--KO2 EXPECTED BEHAVIOUR: KO1:The picture of B and C should be swap KO2:There should be call number and time ASSOCIATE SPECIFICATION: TEST PLAN REFERENCE: TOOLS AND PLATFORMS USED: USER IMPACT: REPRODUCING RATE: 3/3 For FT PR, Please list reference mobile's behavior:
blocking-b2g: --- → leo?
Joe, what state is call holding supposed to be for 1.1? Is this intended design? Stephany suggested you would know.
Flags: needinfo?(jcheng)
Triage partners are not concerned about this being put to v1.2. Joe please minus if you confirm this is not spec'ed for 1.1
Attached image pic.PNG
With the screenshot from comment 3, this bug is easier to understand. Base on what I am able to find from v1.1 UX visuals. Current implementation was not done per spec'ed. (Stephany can confirm on the UX design, hopefully i didn't look into the wrong folder for v1.1) https://mozilla.app.box.com/files/0/f/991297523/1/f_7980848270 https://mozilla.app.box.com/files/0/f/991297523/1/f_7980848110 https://mozilla.app.box.com/files/0/f/991297523/1/f_7980847716 https://mozilla.app.box.com/files/0/f/991297523/1/f_7980847292 Comms team Product/EPM (MOZ+TEF) discussed this and given how much time we have left for v1.1, we'd like this to be considered for v1.2. Actually this should be considered together as part of the conf-call feature in v1.2.
Flags: needinfo?(jcheng) → needinfo?(firefoxos-ux-bugzilla)
Blocks: 897441
At this point we're not taking more blockers unless they're partner-championed or critical security/regression.
blocking-b2g: leo? → -
Removing the needinfo? flag since we've noted that the feature was not designed to spec and has since been moved to 1.2.
Flags: needinfo?(firefoxos-ux-bugzilla)
Whiteboard: [u=commsapps-user c=dialer p=0]
batch update: waiting for conference call feature to be completed, then QA to verify these
Whiteboard: [u=commsapps-user c=dialer p=0] → [u=commsapps-user c=dialer p=0] [status: waiting for conf-call to be completed and then verify]
koi+ as it links to koi-comms bug
blocking-b2g: - → koi+
Including the dependency on the conference call user story so that this bug is rechecked once the conference call one is resolved.
Depends on: 887680
Assignee: nobody → rexboy
Target Milestone: --- → 1.2 QE1(Oct11)
Target Milestone: 1.2 QE1(Oct11) → 1.2 QE2(Oct25)
WIP https://github.com/rexboy7/gaia/commit/290c9bfe00f68a528abeb32df6b2b22f070a805c Since we switch calls by just holding active one, the call resumed doesn't go through "resuming" states before switching to "connected" state. "resuming" state is only raised when we call resume() explicitly. Therefore I'm considering remove "resuming" case in handler since most of the process is the same as what "connected" do. I'm working on CSS now with visual shown below: https://bug887680.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=795988
Attached image WIP Screenshot (obsolete) —
And some WIP screenshot. Not sure if I need to get feedback from UX (Especially I'm not sure when to show/not to show incoming/outcoming/pause small icons). If I can't find and spec later I'll ni? someone.
Hi there, Please set another ni? for UX if this spec doesn't address the issue (it should): https://mozilla.box.com/s/tipch2ziarstxcbnjvt1
Attached image wip screenshot
These are screenshots on the following proposed patch. Notice that the font size of contacts name in multi-call screen is still bigger than proposed visual spec. It's because |HandledCall.formatPhoneNumber| set font-size directly on them rather than just using predefined css rule. I'm not sure if we have any specified consideration on this so I just keep it for now.
Attachment #813007 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attached file patch
The most significant change on Javascript part is that I removed "resuming" state, see comment 10. Most of the other works are css changes. Hello Etienne, would you help review this patch too?
Attachment #817695 - Flags: review?(etienne)
Hi, how do you deal with this situation: contact B has photo, but C has not, when I swap these two calls, I think when B is connected, C is held, it should display B's photo, when C is connected, B is held, it should display the wallpaper.
(In reply to Mingming ZHAO from comment #15) > Hi, how do you deal with this situation: contact B has photo, but C has not, > when I swap these two calls, I think when B is connected, C is held, it > should display B's photo, when C is connected, B is held, it should display > the wallpaper. Makes sense. Sorry for didn't consider that case. Let me figure out how to add it to patch.
Comment on attachment 817695 [details] patch Forwarding this CSS-heavy review to Rik :)
Attachment #817695 - Flags: review?(etienne) → review?(anthony)
Comment on attachment 817695 [details] patch Updated per comment 15 and comment 16, handling cases of switching between contacts with/without photos. (as one additional commit)
Comment on attachment 817695 [details] patch After rebasing to latest master I found the patch doesn't show the CDMA switch button correctly. Anthony I'll send review to you again once I fix this issue. Sorry for bothering.
Attachment #817695 - Flags: review?(anthony)
Comment on attachment 817695 [details] patch Done, just a few css to keep CDMA case. I have no real device to test so I just tested by hard-code something. They should be OK I think. We may call Gabriele if necessary. Anthony may you help?
Attachment #817695 - Flags: review?(anthony)
Comment on attachment 817695 [details] patch I haven't reviewed the CSS nor tested the CDMA case. I'm just giving my partial feedback now so I'm not blocking you. Overall, it's good. I have a few stylistics comments, one edge case that needs fixing and some tests modifications.
Attachment #817695 - Flags: review?(anthony) → review-
Comment on attachment 817695 [details] patch Ok, Just updated per suggestions. Thanks for helping. Anthony may you take a look again?
Attachment #817695 - Flags: review- → review?(anthony)
Comment on attachment 817695 [details] patch Sorry for the slow review. I forgot to think about a test when we initially connect to a call. (There is one, but only test with a photo)
Attachment #817695 - Flags: review?(anthony)
Comment on attachment 817695 [details] patch Thanks again. I also forgot to consider that case :/ for first call it doesn't matter but we need it for second incoming call. Small changes due to last comments.
Attachment #817695 - Flags: review?(anthony)
Comment on attachment 817695 [details] patch I'm so sorry, I just noticed now that I have an error when I run call_screen_test.js alone: ReferenceError: MockNavigatorSettings is not defined at (anonymous) (http://communications.gaiamobile.org:8080/dialer/test/unit/call_screen_test.js:471) I have no idea where this error comes from. I also have a nit for the style of the new test.
Attachment #817695 - Flags: review?(anthony)
Sorry for didn't notice that error.. (I ran both call_screen and handled_call together so that it didn't appear.. weird) Using Require() rather than requireApp() fixes it. For the new test I have something to confirm before modifying the patch, see Github. Thanks for the detailed review!
Comment on attachment 817695 [details] patch Updated per comments on Github. Thanks for the help!
Attachment #817695 - Flags: review?(anthony)
Comment on attachment 817695 [details] patch Excellent! Don't forget to squash and remove the extra debug code before landing.
Attachment #817695 - Flags: review?(anthony) → review+
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Uplifted ad79e2a2b3076c74d7ebbca402723e2a3d7254cb to: v1.2: e4b10fdb0c9bd38c25a3fe16c75fd0c18068f5cb
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: