Closed
Bug 927711
Opened 11 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
B2G MMS : Handle message delivered timestamp for delivery report
Categories
(Firefox OS Graveyard :: RIL, defect)
Tracking
(blocking-b2g:1.3+, firefox28 fixed)
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox28 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: airpingu, Assigned: airpingu)
References
Details
(Keywords: dev-doc-needed)
Attachments
(2 files, 2 obsolete files)
(deleted),
patch
|
ctai
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
(deleted),
patch
|
airpingu
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #887159 +++ Just like SMS, Gecko needs to expose delivered timestamp for MMS delivery report.
Assignee | ||
Updated•11 years ago
|
blocking-b2g: koi? → 1.3?
Comment 2•11 years ago
|
||
Set milestone. If it isn't reasonable for you, please directly change it.
Target Milestone: --- → 1.3 Sprint 6 - 12/6
Updated•11 years ago
|
Target Milestone: 1.3 Sprint 6 - 12/6 → 1.3 Sprint 4 - 11/8
Assignee | ||
Updated•11 years ago
|
Keywords: dev-doc-needed
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•11 years ago
|
||
Hi Jonas, Could you please take the superreview? This exactly follows our agreement with W3C at [1]. Should be for sure to go. Note that this patch depends on Bug 928821 which is under way landing. [1] http://messaging.sysapps.org/#idl-def-MmsDeliveryInfo
Attachment #825229 -
Flags: superreview?(jonas)
Comment on attachment 825229 [details] [diff] [review] Part 1, DOM API IDL, V1 I'll defer to Hsin-Yi. But this looks good to me.
Attachment #825229 -
Flags: superreview?(jonas) → review?(htsai)
Assignee | ||
Updated•11 years ago
|
Attachment #825229 -
Flags: review?(htsai) → superreview?(htsai)
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 825229 [details] [diff] [review] Part 1, DOM API IDL, V1 As we just talked, we should use review? to review APIs instead of using superreview?. :)
Attachment #825229 -
Flags: superreview?(htsai) → review?(htsai)
Comment 7•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 825230 [details] [diff] [review] Part 2, implementation, V1 Review of attachment 825230 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Good job. Only a small defect. ::: dom/mobilemessage/src/gonk/MmsService.js @@ +1412,5 @@ > + deliveryInfo: aDomMessage.deliveryInfo, > + sender: aDomMessage.sender, > + receivers: aDomMessage.receivers, > + timestamp: aDomMessage.timestamp, > + deliveryTimestamp: aDomMessage.deliveryTimestamp, We don't need this line. Because this information should be contained in deliveryInfo. ::: dom/mobilemessage/src/gonk/MobileMessageDatabaseService.js @@ +1371,1 @@ > if (!match) { We might need to use |matchPhoneNumbers| to match number. Or we should open a new bug for it.
Attachment #825230 -
Flags: review?(ctai)
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Chia-hung Tai [:ctai :ctai_mozilla :cht] from comment #7) > We might need to use |matchPhoneNumbers| to match number. Or we should open > a new bug for it. Thanks for the review! I'd prefer opening a new bug for that. Supposing we would want to back out this patch due to the wrong |matchPhoneNumbers|, then we don't need to back out this one which addresses separate issues. Will come up with the new patch later. Thanks!
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #825230 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #827315 -
Flags: review?(ctai)
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Gene Lian [:gene] (needinfo? encouraged) from comment #8) > (In reply to Chia-hung Tai [:ctai :ctai_mozilla :cht] from comment #7) > > We might need to use |matchPhoneNumbers| to match number. Or we should open > > a new bug for it. > > Thanks for the review! I'd prefer opening a new bug for that. Supposing we > would want to back out this patch due to the wrong |matchPhoneNumbers|, then > we don't need to back out this one which addresses separate issues. Open Bug 934931.
Updated•11 years ago
|
Attachment #827315 -
Flags: review?(ctai) → review+
Comment 11•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 825229 [details] [diff] [review] Part 1, DOM API IDL, V1 Review of attachment 825229 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Looks good to me.
Attachment #825229 -
Flags: review?(htsai) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•11 years ago
|
||
r=hsinyi
Attachment #825229 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #827330 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•11 years ago
|
||
remote: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/b2g-inbound/rev/f27a2aba0db2 remote: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/b2g-inbound/rev/6cb70cc44e8c
Comment 14•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Gene Lian [:gene] (needinfo? encouraged) from comment #13) > remote: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/b2g-inbound/rev/f27a2aba0db2 > remote: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/b2g-inbound/rev/6cb70cc44e8c Hi Gene, sorry i had to backout this changesets since it caused build failures/bustages like https://tbpl.mozilla.org/php/getParsedLog.php?id=30132724&tree=B2g-Inbound
Assignee | ||
Comment 15•11 years ago
|
||
So weird... I can pass my local build. Let's see try again: https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=db00505e61cd
Assignee | ||
Comment 16•11 years ago
|
||
The previous try is the wrong patch. New try: https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=f92b8c1f5be2 The result looks good (I didn't change anything). I don't why it would cause build failures. Maybe something wrong with the CLOBBER. Let's re-land this again. https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/b2g-inbound/rev/85ba50130edc https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/b2g-inbound/rev/9ac5edd968c0
Comment 17•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/85ba50130edc https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9ac5edd968c0
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•11 years ago
|
status-firefox28:
--- → fixed
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•