bts (RLL): DCCH/SAPI0 LAPDm without contention resolution is legal
The diffrence is whether we establish the LAPDm link
* after RACH + IMM.ASS (we must include L3 payload for contention
resolution required)
* after assignment from one channel to another (we must not include L3
payload, i.e. no contention resolution)
Change-Id: Ib67763856ffc5f5fd04a87f4192705777931c400
Related: OS#3252
diff --git a/bts/BTS_Tests.ttcn b/bts/BTS_Tests.ttcn
index 49e5fa1..c706437 100644
--- a/bts/BTS_Tests.ttcn
+++ b/bts/BTS_Tests.ttcn
@@ -3108,10 +3108,10 @@
}
testcase TC_rll_est_ind() runs on test_CT {
var RllTestCases tcs := {
- /* normal SAPI0 establishment */
+ /* SAPI0 establishment (contention resolution) */
valueof(t_EITC(0, valueof(ts_RslLinkID_DCCH(0)), '01020304'O, true)),
- /* SAPI 0 requires contention resolution */
- valueof(t_EITC(0, valueof(ts_RslLinkID_DCCH(0)), ''O, false)),
+ /* normal SAPI0 establishment */
+ valueof(t_EITC(0, valueof(ts_RslLinkID_DCCH(0)), ''O, true)),
/* SAPI 3 doesn't support contention resolution */
valueof(t_EITC(3, valueof(ts_RslLinkID_DCCH(3)), '01020304'O, false)),
valueof(t_EITC(3, valueof(ts_RslLinkID_SACCH(3)), '01020304'O, false)),