RDKEMW-13607: merge pair code with mac hash methods by egalla204 · Pull Request #191 · rdkcentral/control

egalla204 · 2026-04-02T01:18:16Z

No description provided.

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR unifies BLE targeted pairing so the system uses a single “pair with code” path for both advertising-name-based pairing and MAC-hash-based pairing, removing the separate MAC-hash pairing APIs and the need to pass the originating IR key code through IPC.

Changes:

Remove pairWithMacHash / startPairingWithMacHash / startWithMacHash APIs and route all targeted pairing through the existing “pair with code” flow.
Update the BLE model config parsing to use a new advertisingNames object (required regexPairing, optional targeted pairing format + reconnect regex).
Simplify IPC for Main_StartPairWithCode by removing the key_code field.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 11 out of 11 changed files in this pull request and generated 6 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
`src/ctrlm_ir_controller.cpp`	Stops sending `key_code` in the pair-with-code request and only forwards the pairing byte.
`src/ble/hal/configsettings/configmodelsettings.cpp`	Parses new `advertisingNames` config structure; adjusts optional/required behavior and logging.
`src/ble/hal/blercu/blercupairingstatemachine.h`	Removes `startWithMacHash()` declaration.
`src/ble/hal/blercu/blercupairingstatemachine.cpp`	Merges MAC-hash and code pairing behavior into `startWithCode()` and keeps MAC-hash matching as a fallback.
`src/ble/hal/blercu/blercucontroller.h`	Removes `startPairingWithMacHash()` from the controller interface.
`src/ble/hal/blercu/blercucontroller.cpp`	Removes the controller implementation of MAC-hash pairing.
`src/ble/hal/blercu/blercucontroller_p.h`	Removes override for `startPairingWithMacHash()`.
`src/ble/ctrlm_ble_rcu_interface.h`	Removes `pairWithMacHash()` from the BLE RCU interface.
`src/ble/ctrlm_ble_rcu_interface.cpp`	Removes `pairWithMacHash()` implementation; pairing is done via `pairWithCode()`.
`src/ble/ctrlm_ble_network.cpp`	Always calls `pairWithCode()` for targeted pairing requests.
`include/ctrlm_ipc.h`	Removes `key_code` from `ctrlm_iarm_call_StartPairWithCode_params_t`.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2026-04-02T01:23:44Z

src/ctrlm_ir_controller.cpp

      ctrlm_iarm_call_StartPairWithCode_params_t params;
-      params.key_code = key_code;
      params.pair_code = commandCode;



ctrlm_iarm_call_StartPairWithCode_params_t is allocated on the stack and only pair_code is assigned; api_revision/network_id/result remain uninitialized. Even though this call is synchronous today, leaving these fields uninitialized risks propagating garbage if later code starts logging/validating them. Consider zero-initializing params (e.g., memset_s or brace-init) and explicitly setting api_revision + network_id where applicable.

Copilot · 2026-04-02T01:23:45Z

include/ctrlm_ipc.h

 typedef struct {
   unsigned char            api_revision;       ///< Revision of this API
   ctrlm_network_id_t       network_id;         ///< IN - Identifier of network
-   unsigned int             key_code;           ///< IN - Key code from device
   unsigned int             pair_code;          ///< IN - Pairing code from device
   ctrlm_iarm_call_result_t result;             ///< OUT - return code of the operation
 } ctrlm_iarm_call_StartPairWithCode_params_t;


The public IARM struct ctrlm_iarm_call_StartPairWithCode_params_t changed layout (key_code removed). This is a breaking ABI/API change for any out-of-process IARM client that still uses the old struct layout, and currently the server-side handler for Main_StartPairWithCode does not appear to validate api_revision. Please bump CTRLM_MAIN_IARM_BUS_API_REVISION and/or add explicit api_revision validation for this call so old clients fail safely instead of misinterpreting fields.

Copilot · 2026-04-02T01:23:45Z

src/ble/hal/configsettings/configmodelsettings.cpp

+    // Advertising names field
+    json_t *advertisingNamesObj = json_object_get(json, "advertisingNames");
+    if (!advertisingNamesObj || !json_is_object(advertisingNamesObj)) {
+        XLOGD_ERROR("missing or invalid 'advertisingNames' field");
+        return;
    }
-
-    // scanNameFormat field
-    obj = json_object_get(json, "scanNameFormat");
+    // advertisingNames.regexPairing field
+    obj = json_object_get(advertisingNamesObj, "regexPairing");
    if (!obj || !json_is_string(obj)) {
-        XLOGD_ERROR("invalid 'scanNameFormat' field, this is required so returning...");
+        XLOGD_ERROR("invalid required 'advertisingNames.regexPairing' field, aborting...");
        return;
    }
    m_scanNameMatcher = std::regex(json_string_value(obj), std::regex_constants::ECMAScript);
-    XLOGD_INFO("Pairing name regex <%s>", json_string_value(obj));
-
-    // (optional) connectNameFormat field
-    obj = json_object_get(json, "connectNameFormat");
-    if (!obj || !json_is_string(obj)) {
-        XLOGD_WARN("invalid 'connectNameFormat' field, not fatal, setting to scanNameFormat");
-        m_connectNameMatcher = m_scanNameMatcher;
+    m_connectNameMatcher = m_scanNameMatcher;
+    XLOGD_INFO("Pairing and reconnect advertising name regex <%s>", json_string_value(obj));
+


The JSON schema example in the class comment still documents the legacy fields (scanNameFormat/connectNameFormat/etc), but the parser now requires advertisingNames.regexPairing and uses advertisingNames.optional.{formatSpecifierTargetedPairing,regexReconnect}. Please update the documented example/schema so it matches the new required/optional config fields.

Copilot · 2026-04-02T01:23:45Z

src/ble/hal/configsettings/configmodelsettings.cpp

+    // advertisingNames.optional array
+    json_t *optionalNames = json_object_get(advertisingNamesObj, "optional");
+    if (!optionalNames || !json_is_object(optionalNames)) {
+        XLOGD_INFO("missing or invalid 'optionalNames' field, not fatal, continuing...");


The comment says "advertisingNames.optional array" but the code treats advertisingNames.optional as a JSON object (json_is_object). Also, the log message refers to "optionalNames" rather than the actual key path "advertisingNames.optional", which makes config/debugging harder. Please align the comment + log messages with the real JSON shape and key name.

Suggested change

// advertisingNames.optional array

json_t *optionalNames = json_object_get(advertisingNamesObj, "optional");

if (!optionalNames || !json_is_object(optionalNames)) {

XLOGD_INFO("missing or invalid 'optionalNames' field, not fatal, continuing...");

// advertisingNames.optional object

json_t *optionalNames = json_object_get(advertisingNamesObj, "optional");

if (!optionalNames || !json_is_object(optionalNames)) {

XLOGD_INFO("missing or invalid 'advertisingNames.optional' field, not fatal, continuing...");

Copilot · 2026-04-02T01:23:45Z

src/ble/hal/configsettings/configmodelsettings.cpp

        }
-        m_servicesOptional.insert(serviceStr);
-    }
+        servicesOptionalStr = servicesOptionalStr.substr(0, servicesOptionalStr.length() - 2); // Remove the trailing comma and space


servicesOptionalStr is always trimmed with substr(0, length() - 2) even when m_servicesOptional is empty (e.g., services.optional exists but is an empty array). This relies on unsigned wraparound and makes the intent unclear. Consider trimming only when the string length is >= 2 (or build the comma-separated string without a trailing delimiter).

Suggested change

servicesOptionalStr = servicesOptionalStr.substr(0, servicesOptionalStr.length() - 2); // Remove the trailing comma and space

if (!servicesOptionalStr.empty()) {

// Remove the trailing comma and space

servicesOptionalStr = servicesOptionalStr.substr(0, servicesOptionalStr.length() - 2);

}

Copilot · 2026-04-02T01:23:45Z

src/ble/hal/blercu/blercupairingstatemachine.cpp

        } else if (m_pairingMacList.size() != 0) {
+            // Device not found through name match or MAC hash so let's check a mac address list
+            // Pairing via a mac address list clears supported names and the pairing mac hash
            if (m_pairingMacList.size() != 0) {
                // check if the mac address matches any of the ones in the filter list (if it exists)
                bool found = false;


In processDevice(), the else if (m_pairingMacList.size() != 0) branch immediately re-checks if (m_pairingMacList.size() != 0) inside, which is redundant and adds noise to the control flow. Please remove the inner size check and keep a single guard for the MAC list path.

egalla204 added 2 commits March 6, 2026 10:25

Merge branch 'release/1.1.11'

a84164f

RDKEMW-13607: merge pair code with mac hash methods

3a2b8c3

egalla204 requested a review from a team as a code owner April 2, 2026 01:18

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 2, 2026 01:18

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of egalla204 April 2, 2026 01:18 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

RDKEMW-13607: merge pair code with mac hash methods#191

RDKEMW-13607: merge pair code with mac hash methods#191
egalla204 wants to merge 2 commits intodevelopfrom
feature/RDKEMW-13607_ctrlm_standardize_pairing_methods

egalla204 commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Conversation

egalla204 commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants