Closed Bug 849757 Opened 12 years ago Closed 12 years ago

B2G RIL : Support Service Provider Lock and Corperate Lock

Categories

(Core :: DOM: Device Interfaces, defect)

Product:
Core
Component:
DOM: Device Interfaces
Platform:
ARM
Gonk (Firefox OS)
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

()

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED
Milestone:
mozilla22
Project Flags:
blocking-b2g tef+
Tracking Flags:
Tracking Status
firefox20 --- wontfix
firefox21 --- wontfix
firefox22 --- fixed
b2g18 --- fixed
b2g18-v1.0.0 --- wontfix
b2g18-v1.0.1 --- fixed

People

(Reporter: allstars.chh, Assigned: allstars.chh)

References

Details

Attachments

(8 files, 8 obsolete files)

Part 3: spck and cck in RIL.
(deleted), patch
vicamo
: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Part 1: Add 'corporateLocked' and 'serviceProviderLocked' to cardState in IDL. v2
(deleted), patch
allstars.chh
: review+
sicking
: superreview+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Part 2: Add 'corporateLocked' and 'serviceProviderLocked' to cardState in RIL. v2.
(deleted), patch
vicamo
: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Part 4: xpcshell tests. v2
(deleted), patch
allstars.chh
: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
(b2g18_v1_0_1) Part 1: Add 'corporateLocked' and 'serviceProviderLocked' to cardState in IDL. v2
(deleted), patch
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
(b2g18_v1_0_1) Part 2: Add 'corporateLocked' and 'serviceProviderLocked' to cardState in RIL. v2
(deleted), patch
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
(b2g18_v1_0_1) Part 3: spck and cck in RIL. v2
(deleted), patch
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
b2g18_v1_0_1) Part 4: xpcshell tests. v2
(deleted), patch
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
From Bug 808808, we need to add support for 'Service Provider Lock'.
See TS 22.022 Clause 6, SP personalisation/ Clause 7, Corporate personalisation
Summary: B2G RIL : Support Service Provider Lock → B2G RIL : Support Service Provider Lock and Corperate Lock
blocking-b2g: --- → leo?
Assignee: nobody → allstars.chh
Attachment #724327 - Flags: review?(vyang)
Attached patch WIP - Part 4: xpcshell tests. (obsolete) (deleted) — — Splinter Review
I am still working on xpcshell tests for unlock cck and spck
Attachment #724327 - Flags: review?(vyang) → review+
Comment on attachment 724328 [details] [diff] [review] Part 2: Add 'corporateLocked' and 'serviceProviderLocked' to cardState in RIL. Review of attachment 724328 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Could you add document origin in comments?
(In reply to Vicamo Yang [:vicamo][:vyang] from comment #6) > Comment on attachment 724328 [details] [diff] [review] > Part 2: Add 'corporateLocked' and 'serviceProviderSoLocked' to cardState in > RIL. > > Review of attachment 724328 [details] [diff] [review]: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Could you add document origin in comments? Sorry I don't understand what you mean??
This should be leo+ as it blocks a blocker.
Comment on attachment 724327 [details] [diff] [review] Part 1: Add 'corporateLocked' and 'serviceProviderLocked' to cardState in IDL. >+ * (4) Corporate depersonalization. Unlocking the corporate control key (CCK). > * >- * unlockCardLock({lockType: "puk", >- * puk: "...", >- * newPin: "..."}); >+ * unlockCardLock({lockType: "spck", -------------------------------------------------------------------------- lockType should be "cck"?
Thanks for Anthur catching up the typos in comments.
Attachment #724327 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #724769 - Flags: superreview?(jonas)
Attachment #724769 - Flags: review+
addressed Vicamo's comments.
Attachment #724328 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #724328 - Flags: review?(vyang)
Attachment #724774 - Flags: review?(vyang)
Attached patch Part 4: xpcshell tests. (obsolete) (deleted) — — Splinter Review
Attachment #724330 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #724775 - Flags: review?(vyang)
Attachment #724774 - Flags: review?(vyang) → review+
Attachment #724775 - Flags: review?(vyang) → review+
Attachment #724329 - Flags: review?(vyang) → review+
Try run for 7a7e96014a9d is complete. Detailed breakdown of the results available here: https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=7a7e96014a9d Results (out of 4 total builds): success: 4 Builds (or logs if builds failed) available at: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/try-builds/yhuang@mozilla.com-7a7e96014a9d
Attached patch Part 4: xpcshell tests. v2 (deleted) — — Splinter Review
Replace pin to 8 digits.
Attachment #724775 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #724814 - Flags: review+
Attachment #724769 - Flags: superreview?(jonas) → superreview+
Waiting for Bug 822522 and Bug 837755 to land on b2g18 first, otherwise my patches will get conflict.
Blocks a blocker.
blocking-b2g: leo? → leo+
Blocks: 857837
asking for tef here as a dependency for bug 857837.
blocking-b2g: leo+ → tef?
blocking-b2g: tef? → tef+
status-b2g18-v1.0.1: wontfix → affected
For tef+, Do we need to push all 4 patches? Or just need Part 2?
(In reply to Yoshi Huang[:allstars.chh][:yoshi] from comment #22) > For tef+, > Do we need to push all 4 patches? > Or just need Part 2? I'd say yes, IHMO we should uplift the 4 patches. Is there any problem about doing that?
okay, I'll prepare those 4 patches for b2g18_v1_0_1
Jaoo, should we also tef+ Bug 822522? because PERSO_STATE also has a UNKNOWN state.
Whiteboard: [NO_UPLIFT]
Attachment #736742 - Attachment description: Part 1: Add 'corporateLocked' and 'serviceProviderLocked' to cardState in IDL. → (b2g18_v1_0_1) Part 1: Add 'corporateLocked' and 'serviceProviderLocked' to cardState in IDL.
Attachment #736743 - Attachment description: (b2g18_v_1_0_1) Part 2: Add 'corporateLocked' and 'serviceProviderLocked' to cardState in RIL. → (b2g18_v1_0_1) Part 2: Add 'corporateLocked' and 'serviceProviderLocked' to cardState in RIL.
Yes, we should. If theses patches depend somehow on bug 822522 we should uplift it to b2g18_v1_0_1 release branch as well. Requesting tef+ flag for bug 822522 and preparing it for uplifting then.
Okay, I'll re-upload my patches after rebase on your Bug 822522 patch.
Anshul, can we remove the NO_UPLIFT here?
Flags: needinfo?(anshulj)
Daniel, the support for this is already available in commercial RIL on 1.0 as per https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=857837#c36. I would suggest we uplift bug 849751 and bug 857259 as well to complete the feature.
Flags: needinfo?(anshulj)
Whiteboard: [NO_UPLIFT]
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: