Certificate grouping implementation differs between iOS & Android

[Ein-Tim]

Avoid duplicates

• [X] Bug is not mentioned in the FAQ
• [X] Bug affects both Android and iOS, for specific issues / questions that apply only to one operating system, please raise them in the respective repositories:
  • Android repository
  • iOS repository
• [X] Bug is not already reported in another issue

Technical details

• Device name: iPhone XR / Huawei P Smart 2019
• iOS/Android version: 15.4 / 10
• App version: 2.19.0 / 2.19.0

Describe the bug

The certificate grouping feature has a different implementation under iOS & Android. While iOS does not show the second name, Android does.

Steps to reproduce the issue

1. Add a certificate with only only fore- & surname
2. Add another certificate for the same person with forename, middle name & surname
3. See that under iOS only fore- & surname are shown
4. See that under Android fore-, middle & surname are shown

Expected behaviour

The implementation should not differ between iOS and Android

Possible Fix

Align iOS to Android.

Additional context

I can provide certificates via Mail if wished.

---

Internal Tracking ID: EXPOSUREAPP-12300

[dsarkar]

@Ein-Tim Thanks for reporting

[dsarkar]

Internal Tracking ID: EXPOSUREAPP-12300

[mlenkeit]

@Ein-Tim do I understand this report correctly, that the grouping itself works consistently across iOS and Android, but that only the name that is displayed for the "group" differs?

[Ein-Tim]

@mlenkeit

Yes, this is what I am experiencing.

[mlenkeit]

Ok, understood. This behavior is indeed not clearly defined, we'll take a look at it.

[Ein-Tim]

Update:

To fix this I suggest to align iOS to Android because then the implementation is constant between iOS/Android CWA & iOS/Android CovPass.

[svengabr]

I have just checked the linked Jira issue.

Jira Ticket is flagged as: Resolution: Wont Fix Status: Obsolete

Developer comment:

As there is no way to decide whats wrong or right, we decided to keep the current behaviour for both OS

[Ein-Tim]

@svengabr

We just saw an issue getting closed today for feature parity reasons, here feature parity seems to be not important. Maybe it's worth outlining when the team thinks implementation may differ and when not...