**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Thu Apr 14 02:59:58 2011 Apr 14 10:25:07 the patches have been sent to ofono mailing list Apr 14 10:25:14 the bug report is also updates Apr 14 10:25:18 see: https://bugs.meego.com/show_bug.cgi?id=14784 Apr 14 13:04:13 denkenz: ping Apr 14 14:27:10 pnunes: pong Apr 14 14:28:13 denkenz: Following the "simplification" related to the flag 'respond_on_exit', I noticed that the flag was set to true for the command Launch browser. Apr 14 14:28:46 denkenz: But, for such proactive command, the terminal response "UICC session terminated by the user" is not possible ( table 6.1 TS 102 223). Apr 14 14:29:31 denkenz: I was about to remove this flag for Launch Browser but I realize that we still need to send an error in case of stkagent exit. Apr 14 14:30:05 denkenz: It requires also to distinguish in the callback 'session/default_agent_notifiy the type of proactive command. Apr 14 14:31:44 denkenz: I know that this kind of none-compliancy is not tracked by GCF test so is it something you can consider? Apr 14 14:36:16 So respond_on_exit is set because the agent can quit during ConfirmLaunchBrowser Apr 14 14:36:28 And I believe that this is an error in the spec Apr 14 14:36:36 Talk to Jeevaka, he did that part Apr 14 14:37:34 I think we discussed this with him before, and there is in fact a test that checks for end session during launch browser confirmation Apr 14 14:37:45 But it has been a while Apr 14 14:38:35 denkenz: OK, I will clarify with Jeevaka. Thanks. Apr 14 14:40:12 denkenz: ping Apr 14 14:40:20 Gzajac: pong Apr 14 14:41:39 denkenz: I have manually applied Gustavo patches into ConnMan to request and release a private network, I am now thinking about the way to call those dbus methods into oFono Apr 14 14:42:25 denkenz: so I thought first to use a ConnMan plugin to send dbus message to ConnMan and using some drivers registered into the emulator Apr 14 14:42:54 But isn't it faster to directly call the dbus methods into emulator? Apr 14 14:43:17 Would that respect the architecture ? or should I use a plugin ? Apr 14 14:43:53 You have to create some sort of plugin for this Apr 14 14:44:04 Calling connman directly from oFono is not a good idea Apr 14 14:44:11 from oFono core that is Apr 14 14:45:28 ok so the best idea is to implement a plugin connman like an ofono plugin exists into connman, right? Apr 14 14:47:28 yes, you need to abstract the private network ip address request somehow Apr 14 14:47:54 we have to play with naming, but something like: Apr 14 14:48:42 get_emulator_network(struct emulator_network *en, ofono_emulator_network_cb_t cb, void *data) Apr 14 14:49:26 and ofono_emulator_network_cb_t(struct ofono_error *error, int fd, const char *ip, const char **dns) or something like that Apr 14 14:51:32 and we would obviously need changes to GAtPPP as well Apr 14 14:53:25 ok so we set the callback as soon as the emulator atom exists into connman plugin Apr 14 14:53:48 and then we call it when a data call is needed Apr 14 14:54:18 I would have to modify the ppp_net and to pass the fd to GAtPPP Apr 14 14:55:25 yep Apr 14 14:55:47 ok I understand Apr 14 14:55:58 I will test it Apr 14 14:57:40 jeevaka: ping Apr 14 15:57:04 pnunes: pong Apr 14 15:57:47 jeevaka: According the spec, it appears that the terminal response "UICC session terminated by the user" is not possible for Launch browser. Apr 14 15:58:00 jeevaka: However, this kind of error is returned when the agent quits during ConfirmLaunchBrowser. Apr 14 15:58:43 jeevaka: Denkenz thinks that this is an error in the spec. Could you confirm ? is there a test that checks for end session during launch browser confirmation? Apr 14 16:00:59 as per the spec, I agree UICC session terminated by user is not one among the allowed responses for Launch Browser. Let me recollect why we added that Apr 14 16:16:23 That has to be an error in the spec, probably because the spec mentions that a successful launch browser terminates the session Apr 14 16:17:11 we wanted to keep it as its possible for agent to quit. Spec is not clear in this case. I don't think there was any test case related to this Apr 14 16:17:57 as denkenz said we felt that it was an error in the spec Apr 14 16:18:49 The spec is written by monkeys anyway Apr 14 16:19:05 There are so many ambiguities its not funny Apr 14 16:21:16 denkenz: so should I forget this point? Apr 14 16:22:11 I say forget this for now Apr 14 16:22:16 we will be still be compliant on this as there is no test case on this ;) Apr 14 16:22:50 oFono is not even claiming compliance towards class C, since the rest of Class C is braindead Apr 14 16:23:22 denkenz, jeevaka: OK, fine. Apr 14 16:23:22 nod Apr 14 23:40:16 We have ofono-0.47 and phonesim-1.13 now. Apr 14 23:40:25 Please do not use ofono-0.46 since it is buggy. **** ENDING LOGGING AT Fri Apr 15 02:59:57 2011