Hi Pekka, > > this is not an acceptable patch. You are removing functionality and > > lengthy comment without providing a comment in the commit message from > > equal length and detail. > > > > We can not do it like this since 1 month later nobody remembers what has > > been done here and why. This needs proper documentation. > > Please care to explain what the reference to the 22.090 was doing > here? A terminal simply do not care how the network routes the USSD. > And from the network point of view, any string that can be encoded in > the ussd-String of processUnstructuredSS-Request according to the > rules of 23.038 is valid USSD string. Most of them fall in the cop-out > of the case d in the 22.090 reference I removed. Like if I sent a USSD > string "Marcel" to network, it is handled according to the case d. > > Denis explained to me what this function was supposed to do, and I > tried to fix it according to the explanation. According to Denis, the > function here determines which MMI dial strings are considered as USSD > string (after structured supplementary service control codes are > weeded out). > > I can put the explanation into the commit message (and fix the ussd > atom part), if that is required.
yes, please add this to the commit message. Since I didn't even look into the case if this is technical sound or not. The imbalance of removed comments compare to commit message explaining what the patch does struck me first. Hence my complaint. Regards Marcel _______________________________________________ ofono mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
