Merge "Minor clarificaton on USER_IDENTIFICATION_ASSOCIATION doc." into rvc-dev
This commit is contained in:
commit
501169a9fb
1 changed files with 3 additions and 3 deletions
|
@ -2847,7 +2847,7 @@ enum VehicleProperty : int32_t {
|
|||
*
|
||||
* Then to associate the user with the custom mechanism, a set request would be made:
|
||||
*
|
||||
* int32[0]: 42 // request id
|
||||
* int32[0]: 43 // request id
|
||||
* int32[1]: 10 (Android user id)
|
||||
* int32[2]: 0 (Android user flags)
|
||||
* int32[3]: 1 (number of associations being set)
|
||||
|
@ -2856,7 +2856,7 @@ enum VehicleProperty : int32_t {
|
|||
*
|
||||
* If the request succeeded, the response would be simply:
|
||||
*
|
||||
* int32[0]: 42 // request id
|
||||
* int32[0]: 43 // request id
|
||||
* int32[1]: 1 (number of associations in the response)
|
||||
* int32[2]: 101 (1st type: UserIdentificationAssociationType::CUSTOM_1)
|
||||
* int32[3]: 1 (1st value: UserIdentificationAssociationValue::ASSOCIATED_CURRENT_USER)
|
||||
|
@ -2865,7 +2865,7 @@ enum VehicleProperty : int32_t {
|
|||
* example above, the end state would be 2 associations (FOB and CUSTOM_1). If we wanted to
|
||||
* associate the user with just CUSTOM_1 but not FOB, then the request should have been:
|
||||
*
|
||||
* int32[0]: 42 // request id
|
||||
* int32[0]: 43 // request id
|
||||
* int32[1]: 10 (Android user id)
|
||||
* int32[2]: 2 (number of types set)
|
||||
* int32[3]: 1 (1st type: UserIdentificationAssociationType::KEY_FOB)
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue