> On Dec. 12, 2011, 6:42 a.m., Oz Linden wrote: > > indra/newview/llimview.cpp, lines 2730-2744 > > <http://codereview.secondlife.com/r/524/diff/1/?file=7502#file7502line2730> > > > > Doesn't it make more sense to put the isMuted check in an outer test, > > and then the more specific additional checks for voice in the inner check? > > > > Also, why is isLinden a special case for voice but not for other > > sessions? > > > > Jonathan Yap wrote: > Having the tests in this order is what is needed. There are two cases > here: dealing with a muted session initiator has to take precendence over a > muted non-initiator avatar in an existing session. > > Not having the test for a linden was someone's oversight which I have > corrected. There are a few other instances of this check not being performed > properly. If you think fixing these now is within the scope of this jira > please let me know. > > Oz Linden wrote: > I'm prepared to believe there's a difference here I don't see, but why > isn't this: > > //ignore invites from muted residents > if (LLMuteList::getInstance()->isMuted(caller_id) && !is_linden) > { > if (voice_invite && "VoiceInviteQuestionDefault" == > question_type) > { > llinfos << "Rejecting voice call from initiating muted > resident " << caller_name << llendl; > LLIncomingCallDialog::processCallResponse(1, payload); > } > return; > } >
I'm sorry, you are totally correct. I was rushing trying to get these changes done quickly so you could have them for your test build and was still thinking of the logic changes I made elsewhere for the non-voice part of this fix. I've adjusted the code per what you have above. - Jonathan ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://codereview.secondlife.com/r/524/#review1122 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Dec. 12, 2011, 6 a.m., Jonathan Yap wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://codereview.secondlife.com/r/524/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Dec. 12, 2011, 6 a.m.) > > > Review request for Viewer. > > > Description > ------- > > Ad-hoc IMs and voice call sessions are established even though you have muted > the initiator. The result is that others in the ad-hoc session start writing > back to what is usually some provocative message from the initiator and you > end up seeing these messages. It has been reported that many IM tabs are > also created sometimes. > > > This addresses bug STORM-1731. > http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/STORM-1731 > > > Diffs > ----- > > doc/contributions.txt f9a1f62ac997 > indra/newview/llimview.cpp f9a1f62ac997 > > Diff: http://codereview.secondlife.com/r/524/diff/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > See test plan in jira. > > Testing Not Done: regression testing to see if these code changes have broken > muting for other circumstances. > > > Thanks, > > Jonathan Yap > >
_______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
