Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/builds/libfprint/libfprint/tests/umockdev-test.py", line 17, in <module>
version = tuple(int(_) for _ in umockdev_version.split(b'.'))
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/builds/libfprint/libfprint/tests/umockdev-test.py", line 17, in <genexpr>
version = tuple(int(_) for _ in umockdev_version.split(b'.'))
^^^^^^
ValueError: invalid literal for int() with base 10: b'g9049374\n'
When opening the device, query the stored prints. This should usually
always succeed (and it should be fast). If it fails, then we are very
likely dealing with a corrupted template storage on the device. In that
case, emit the command to clear the storage in order to reset the device
and get it back into a usable state.
The kernel caches URBs to get descriptor values. Doing a reset before
starting the record ensures that we will see any descriptor reads in the
usbmon trace and can therefore correctly replay them (possibly not true
if they happen multiple times).
The code is correct, but gcc thinks the pointer is still NULL after the
call. As obvious workaround don't seem to work, just disable the warning
for now.
The code is correct, but gcc thinks the pointer is still NULL after the
call. As obvious workaround don't seem to work, just disable the warning
for now.
The internal storage of this device can get messed up by other operating
systems, so it's handy to be able to clear it.
I'm not 100% sure whether the commands I've sent to the device are
exactly what is supposed to be used (just a guess), but it did seem to
work, and it even fixed another issue I had.
* Allow FPI_PRINT_NBIS to be extended rather than overridden if a user
supplies an existing FpPrint template with data;
* Prints will only be extended if a device has the required feature.
For image-based devices this feature is added by default since they
typically do not have storage (this can be overridden at the child
class level).
Extending an existing FpPrint requires passing a template print with
existing data during the enrollment process. This is done because the
caller is responsible for maintaining the fingerprint database and doing
the necessary deserialization operations if needed. The existing
example program is updated to show how to do that.
While useful, there are advantages for this to be done by the
surrounding code (i.e. fprintd). As such, remove the identify stage from
the goodix driver and rely on fprintd doing it for us.
One can probably argue that neither solution is perfect. Ideally, we
would probably return the information required to delete the old print
to the upper stack and let the driver/device handle the duplicate
checking.
However, for now this works well. We may need to reconsider this if we
get devices that do the duplicate checking transparently and just throw
an enroll error.
NOTE: The driver did not report any progress for the identify step. As
such, the number of enroll steps reported by the device remain the same.
Closes: #415
Expose new versioned symbols that work with previous API so that we can
keep compatibility with old drivers without having to recompile them.
We disable the GCancellable API in delayed SSM actions since that was
something that wasn't really needed and prone to errors, instead of
just re-implementing it as it was in the TOD case.
Recompile tod drivers using libfprint-tod-test-drivers project [1] so
that we don't have to reorder the private driver structure, plus use a
versioned driver ID and parse it to check whether a feature is supported
for such TOD test driver.
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/3v1n0/libfprint-tod-test-drivers
Tag 1.94.0
Git-EVTag-v0-SHA512: 7cf9d7defb02433140f575589099569a5848ab34e8ecb0a4a90bb3c9eb1c228a16438afe1b23c381b59c1506f189a845752fead3dbd3c1c11f686cf47302cb1b
This matches the expectation. i.e. we return no-match and we do not
return a scanned print as we don't have anything for it. If we did
indeed return a scanned print, then fprintd would try to delete it
during enroll and would then fail.
Note that we do *not* return a DATA_NOT_FOUND error in the storage
device if the print does not exist. This is because not all devices
support reporting this error. It is therefore more sensible to handle it
gracefully and expect test setups to set the error explicitly for
testing purposes.
Bastien Nocera