Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fixed Ad-hoc icon mixup on the frame #642

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Fixed Ad-hoc icon mixup on the frame #642

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ezequielpereira
Copy link
Contributor

@i5o i5o added the bug label Dec 23, 2015
@samdroid-apps
Copy link
Contributor

Your commit message title is not descriptive, it should be "Show non-sugar ad-hoc networks as ad-hoc networks (not access points)"

You also haven't addressed the issue where there are no icons for ad-hoc on channel 8, etc.

@ezequielpereira
Copy link
Contributor Author

My changes make the non-sugar ad-hoc networks appear just like normal access points, I don't think your title is suitable.
The Ad-hoc on channel 8 (For example) will just have an icon like the normal access points.

* Non-Sugar Ad-hoc networks are shown like access points
* Fixes ticket 3006: https://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/3006
* This is a GCI 2015 task: https://codein.withgoogle.com/tasks/6255669527183360/
@samdroid-apps
Copy link
Contributor

Cool, how should I test this then?

@ezequielpereira
Copy link
Contributor Author

Create an Ad-hoc network on channel 8 using another computer, then try to connect to it from Sugar.

@i5o
Copy link
Contributor

i5o commented Jan 6, 2016

Can anyone test this? I only have one laptop for test :-/

@quozl
Copy link
Contributor

quozl commented Nov 3, 2016

Can be closed.

Was already committed as b86b623. Tested, and does fix both issues in ticket 3006.

@quozl
Copy link
Contributor

quozl commented Nov 3, 2016

Yay, thanks for responding.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants