Closed Bug 793187 Opened 12 years ago Closed 12 years ago

MMI Codes: Support PIN/PIN2/PUK handling via MMI codes

Categories

(Core :: DOM: Device Interfaces, defect, P1)

defect

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla19
blocking-basecamp +
Tracking Status
firefox18 --- fixed
firefox19 --- fixed

People

(Reporter: ferjm, Assigned: ferjm)

References

Details

(Whiteboard: [LOE:S])

Attachments

(2 files, 1 obsolete file)

As per device certification requirements, we need to support MMI codes for entering, changing and unlocking of PIN and PIN2 codes.
Blocks: MMI
Summary: MMI Codes: Support SIM/USIM handling MMI codes → MMI Codes: Support PIN/PIN2/PUK handling via MMI codes
blocking-basecamp: --- → ?
Assignee: nobody → ferjmoreno
Is this a P1 blockers or is it a nice-to-have?
Whiteboard: [blocked-on-input philikon]
(In reply to Andrew Overholt [:overholt] from comment #1) > Is this a P1 blockers or is it a nice-to-have? Blocker because device certification requirement.
Whiteboard: [blocked-on-input philikon]
blocking-basecamp: ? → +
Whiteboard: [LOE:S]
I consider this task as LOE:S once bug 793186 lands
Depends on: 793186
Attached patch Part 1: RIL (obsolete) (deleted) — Splinter Review
Attachment #669884 - Flags: review?(marshall)
Attached patch Part 2: Tests (deleted) — Splinter Review
Attachment #669885 - Flags: review?(marshall)
Attached patch Part 1: RIL (deleted) — Splinter Review
Now without trailing whitespaces.
Attachment #669884 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #669884 - Flags: review?(marshall)
Attachment #669886 - Flags: review?(marshall)
Priority: -- → P1
Comment on attachment 669886 [details] [diff] [review] Part 1: RIL Review of attachment 669886 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Looks good, just two minor nits :) ::: dom/system/gonk/ril_worker.js @@ +2327,5 @@ > options.errorMsg = errorMsg; > this.sendDOMMessage(options); > }).bind(this); > > + let _isValidICCRequest = function _isValidICCRequest() { nit: does this need to be declared as a variable? (just using a named function should suffice, unless you meant to bind it?) also, this function name seems overly broad if you're only validating registration MMI procedures..
Attachment #669886 - Flags: review?(marshall) → review+
Comment on attachment 669885 [details] [diff] [review] Part 2: Tests Review of attachment 669885 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- \o/ for tests. Can you also add test case(s) for the new PINs being different (NEW_PIN_MISMATCH)? r=me with that
Attachment #669885 - Flags: review?(marshall) → review+
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite+
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla19
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: