+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #986308 +++ Created an attachment (id=671243) soul 3.5 fail log +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #409505 +++ DEFECT DESCRIPTION: [STK]call established not control by call control with modify command REPRODUCING PROCEDURES: 1.load one simulated SIM card and SATK application which can send "call control" command; 2.power on phone and run the case SATK->CALL control->STN08005->CC Alpha ID present; 3.dialling number not modify by control command--->KO from the network emulator, the call has already been modified ,but ME still keep display the old dial number. EXPECTED BEHAVIOUR: call control command can rightly execute ,ME will display the modified dial number. ASSOCIATE SPECIFICATION: TEST PLAN REFERENCE: TS spec 11.14 TOOLS AND PLATFORMS USED: V10I+AA. USER IMPACT: Middle. REPRODUCING RATE: 2/2. For FT PR, Please list reference mobile's behavior: ++++++++++ end of initial bug #409505 description ++++++++++

Hi Bhavana, This is certification blocker for TCL per https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=986308#c11. Hsin-Yi has provided patch for 2.0M and m/c on bug 986308. Could you assess whether we should also fix this in 2.1? Thank you!

(In reply to Josh Cheng [:josh] from comment #1) > Hi Bhavana, > This is certification blocker for TCL per > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=986308#c11. > Hsin-Yi has provided patch for 2.0M and m/c on bug 986308. > Could you assess whether we should also fix this in 2.1? Thank you! Given this is a partner cert blocker its fine to land. But given the patches in 986308 fix the issue and have changes to ril_worker.js, Anshul can you help comment is these changes are fine to be uplifted on CAF side. Also NI :hsinyi to help assess the risk of uplift for patches in 986308

Bhavna, yes it is fine to be uplifted to 2.1.

Thanks Anshul. Hsinyi you have a chance to comment on the risk here and think its manageable please seek approval for uplifts for b2g34 branch.

(In reply to bhavana bajaj [:bajaj] from comment #5) > Thanks Anshul. Hsinyi you have a chance to comment on the risk here and > think its manageable please seek approval for uplifts for b2g34 branch. The risk is low given the changes are straight-forward. I'll provide a b2g34 patch later, thanks.

https://treeherder.mozilla.org/ui/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=61f4d68dc781 wait for try before asking for approval

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 #): bug 986308, a certification blocker User impact if declined: certification fails and user cannot get the right call number Testing completed: yes, and also landed on m-c, 2.0m already Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): low String or UUID changes made by this patch: no

checkin-needed for *v2.1* only (landed on m-c already in bug 986308) https://treeherder.mozilla.org/ui/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=61f4d68dc781 try looks good

NI :kwierso for help on checkin-needed given ryan is out for a bit.

Pushed to b2g34_v2_1 in https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g34_v2_1/rev/d7b12401107c This doesn't need to get into Firefox 34 (mozilla-beta), correct?

(In reply to Wes Kocher (:KWierso) from comment #11) > Pushed to b2g34_v2_1 in > https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g34_v2_1/rev/d7b12401107c > > This doesn't need to get into Firefox 34 (mozilla-beta), correct? correct, let me wontfix it.