11:07 p.m.
Hi
I have a question about behavior of ReleaseAndAnswere().
If I am right, this function implements +CHLD=1 at command. Spec 22.030 says
Entering 1 followed by SEND - Releases all active calls (if any exist)
and accepts the other (held or waiting) call.
oFono is failing on this command when there are held and
active calls as there is only check if waiting call exists in
manager_release_and_answere().
Shouldn't ReleaseAndAnswere() release the active call and bring back the held
one in such situation?
There also could be a little more description of behavior for a case when we have
held and waiting calls saying that the waiting call will be answered and that held
won't be released.
Best regards
Tomasz Gregorek
7:37 a.m.
Hi Tomasz,
Shouldn’t ReleaseAndAnswere() release the active call and bring back
the
held one in such situation?
You shouldn't be using ReleaseAndAnswer in this case, instead you should
use SwapCalls. SwapCalls has the added benefit of allowing swapping of
held and active calls even if there is a call waiting (if your modem
hardware supports this.)
There also could be a little more description of behavior for a case
when we have held and waiting calls saying that the waiting call will be answered and
that held won’t be released.
The documentation says: "Releases currently active call and answers the
currently waiting call".
Is this not enough? Can you suggest better wording?
Regards,
-Denis
8:43 a.m.
Hi Denis
2011/1/25 Denis Kenzior <denkenz(a)gmail.com>
Hi Tomasz,
> Shouldn’t ReleaseAndAnswere() release the active call and bring back the
> held one in such situation?
>
You shouldn't be using ReleaseAndAnswer in this case, instead you should
use SwapCalls. SwapCalls has the added benefit of allowing swapping of
held and active calls even if there is a call waiting (if your modem
hardware supports this.)
SwapCalls wont release active call. This would be a case when we finished
active call and we want to disconnect and get back to the held one.
Though this can also be done with Release on active call followed
by SwapCalls.
> There also could be a little more description of behavior for a case
> when we have held and waiting calls saying that the waiting call will be
answered and
> that held won’t be released.
>
The documentation says: "Releases currently active call and answers the
currently waiting call".
Is this not enough? Can you suggest better wording?
If we are not touching held calls with this function than it is enough.
I would only add "if any exist" as this function works when there are held
and waiting calls.
"Releases currently active call if any exists, and answers the
currently waiting call."
Regards,
-Denis
_______________________________________________
ofono mailing list
ofono(a)ofono.org
http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
Best regards
Tomasz
9:01 a.m.
Hi Tomasz,
On 01/25/2011 03:43 PM, Tomasz Gregorek wrote:
Hi Denis
2011/1/25 Denis Kenzior <denkenz(a)gmail.com <mailto:denkenz@gmail.com>>
Hi Tomasz,
> Shouldn’t ReleaseAndAnswere() release the active call and bring
back the
> held one in such situation?
>
You shouldn't be using ReleaseAndAnswer in this case, instead you should
use SwapCalls. SwapCalls has the added benefit of allowing swapping of
held and active calls even if there is a call waiting (if your modem
hardware supports this.)
SwapCalls wont release active call. This would be a case when we finished
active call and we want to disconnect and get back to the held one.
Though this can also be done with Release on active call followed
by SwapCalls.
Yep, Hangup or HangupMultiparty then SwapCalls. If you feel that a
single operation to accomplish hangup + swap is required we can
certainly consider it. For now it didn't pass our API is Minimal +
Complete test. Perhaps ReleaseAndSwap()...?
>
> There also could be a little more description of behavior for a case
> when we have held and waiting calls saying that the waiting call
will be answered and
> that held won’t be released.
>
The documentation says: "Releases currently active call and answers the
currently waiting call".
Is this not enough? Can you suggest better wording?
If we are not touching held calls with this function than it is enough.
I would only add "if any exist" as this function works when there are held
and waiting calls.
"Releases currently active call if any exists, and answers the
currently waiting call."
Fair enough, fixed with commit b937d99791abc8c33ef968be40f193f3985bca8d.
Regards,
-Denis
9:18 a.m.
Hi Denis
2011/1/25 Denis Kenzior <denkenz(a)gmail.com>
Hi Tomasz,
On 01/25/2011 03:43 PM, Tomasz Gregorek wrote:
> Hi Denis
>
> 2011/1/25 Denis Kenzior <denkenz(a)gmail.com <mailto:denkenz@gmail.com>>
>
> Hi Tomasz,
>
> > Shouldn’t ReleaseAndAnswere() release the active call and bring
> back the
> > held one in such situation?
> >
>
> You shouldn't be using ReleaseAndAnswer in this case, instead you
should
> use SwapCalls. SwapCalls has the added benefit of allowing swapping
of
> held and active calls even if there is a call waiting (if your modem
> hardware supports this.)
>
>
> SwapCalls wont release active call. This would be a case when we finished
> active call and we want to disconnect and get back to the held one.
> Though this can also be done with Release on active call followed
> by SwapCalls.
>
Yep, Hangup or HangupMultiparty then SwapCalls. If you feel that a
single operation to accomplish hangup + swap is required we can
certainly consider it. For now it didn't pass our API is Minimal +
Complete test. Perhaps ReleaseAndSwap()...?
I would go with easy solution by just changing src/voicecall.c line 1418
static DBusMessage *manager_release_and_answer(DBusConnection *conn,
DBusMessage *msg, void *data)
{
...
1418:
- if (!voicecalls_have_waiting(vc))
+ if (!voicecalls_have_waiting(vc) && !voicecalls_have_with_status(vc,
CALL_STATUS_HELD))
return __ofono_error_failed(msg);
...
vc->driver->release_all_active(vc, generic_callback, vc);
return NULL;
}
This would give ReleaseAndAnswer full functionality of +CHLD=1.
(sorry for pseudo-patch, working temporary on windows machine)
> >
> > There also could be a little more description of behavior for a
case
> > when we have held and waiting calls saying that the waiting call
> will be answered and
> > that held won’t be released.
> >
>
> The documentation says: "Releases currently active call and answers
the
> currently waiting call".
>
> Is this not enough? Can you suggest better wording?
>
>
> If we are not touching held calls with this function than it is enough.
> I would only add "if any exist" as this function works when there are
held
> and waiting calls.
>
> "Releases currently active call if any exists, and answers the
> currently waiting call."
>
Fair enough, fixed with commit b937d99791abc8c33ef968be40f193f3985bca8d.
Thanks.
Regards,
-Denis
Br
Tomasz
10:32 a.m.
Yep, Hangup or HangupMultiparty then SwapCalls. If you feel that
a
single operation to accomplish hangup + swap is required we can
certainly consider it. For now it didn't pass our API is Minimal +
Complete test. Perhaps ReleaseAndSwap()...?
I would go with easy solution by just changing src/voicecall.c line 1418
static DBusMessage *manager_release_and_answer(DBusConnection *conn,
DBusMessage *msg, void *data)
{
...
1418:
- if (!voicecalls_have_waiting(vc))
+ if (!voicecalls_have_waiting(vc) &&
I guess you mean || here.
!voicecalls_have_with_status(vc, CALL_STATUS_HELD))
return __ofono_error_failed(msg);
...
vc->driver->release_all_active(vc, generic_callback, vc);
return NULL;
}
This would give ReleaseAndAnswer full functionality of +CHLD=1.
(sorry for pseudo-patch, working temporary on windows machine)
Anyhow, I don't agree, we want the API to reflect what is going to
happen. The various scenarios involving CHLD are pretty bizarre and
hard to explain to a developer who hasn't learned 22.030 by heart.
Regards,
-Denis
4254
days inactive
4254
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Denis Kenzior -
Tomasz GREGOREK -
Tomasz Gregorek