[Bluedroid] Expose Adapter Uuids fields, we currently missed to add uuid into PropertyChange event at the beginning of supporting bluedroid. This creates failure on verifying API test cases.

For backend bluedroid, we did not implement BluetoothAdapter Uuids field, and it cause Firefox OS MCTS test case failed. Thus, we have not add it for v1.4.

Comment on attachment 8481022 [details] [diff] [review] Bug 1059136 - [bluedroid] Expose Adapter Uuids field (v1.4) Review of attachment 8481022 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- LGTM.

I was told that, this blocks a partner's launch. So, mark it as a release blocker.

This patch does not need to port bluetooth2 (BT API for v2.2).

Is there a Try link handy for this? :)

https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g30_v1_4/rev/2e2b5dd1a2ec Setting v2.0 and v2.1 to wontfix per comment 7. Please correct if I've misunderstood.

NOTE: Please see https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/B2G_Landing to better understand the B2G approval process and landings. [Approval Request Comment] Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): bluedroid backend support User impact if declined: MCTS fail to pass Testing completed: MCTS Bluetooth query adapter uuid test case can pass Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): Low risk String or UUID changes made by this patch: No

hmm...it seems no one is going to check this approval form?

(In reply to Shawn Huang [:shawnjohnjr] from comment #13) > hmm...it seems no one is going to check this approval form? this is marked as wontfix for 2.0/2.1 here. I am confused if this needs to land. Can you confirm ? Looks like comment #6 blocked 1.4 on it as it blocks partner launch, but I am not sure if this impacts 2.0 in the same or or is this case reproducible on Flame ?

(In reply to bhavana bajaj [:bajaj] from comment #14) > (In reply to Shawn Huang [:shawnjohnjr] from comment #13) > > hmm...it seems no one is going to check this approval form? > > this is marked as wontfix for 2.0/2.1 here. I am confused if this needs to > land. Can you confirm ? > > Looks like comment #6 blocked 1.4 on it as it blocks partner launch, but I > am not sure if this impacts 2.0 in the same or or is this case reproducible > on Flame ? Yes, it is reproducible on flame.