Description of problem: The reported signal strength for two different APs with same SSID and different BSSID is the same. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): kde-plasma-nm-0.9.3.3-1.fc20.x86_64 How reproducible: Have a wireless network called "foo". Have a repeater of the original signal that shares the same SSID, "foo". Store two different configurations: "foo base" and "foo repeater": these configs are identical, except that each one is bound to a specific BSSID. The reported signal strenght for both is the same. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Have two signal with same SSID, different BSSID 2. Save two different configs 3. Both show up in kde-plasma-nm with the same signal strenght Actual results: User can't tell which AP is more appropriate Expected results: Actual signal strenght of each AP being shown Additional info:
libmm-qt-1.0.2-1.20140305git0ede8b1.fc20, libnm-qt-0.9.8.2-1.201404225cff3c5.fc20, kde-plasma-nm-0.9.3.4-1.20140520043bbae.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libmm-qt-1.0.2-1.20140305git0ede8b1.fc20,libnm-qt-0.9.8.2-1.201404225cff3c5.fc20,kde-plasma-nm-0.9.3.4-1.20140520043bbae.fc20
Package libmm-qt-1.0.2-1.20140305git0ede8b1.fc20, libnm-qt-0.9.8.2-1.201404225cff3c5.fc20, contour-0.3-5.fc20, kde-plasma-nm-0.9.3.4-2.20140520git043bbae.fc20: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing libmm-qt-1.0.2-1.20140305git0ede8b1.fc20 libnm-qt-0.9.8.2-1.201404225cff3c5.fc20 contour-0.3-5.fc20 kde-plasma-nm-0.9.3.4-2.20140520git043bbae.fc20' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-6639/contour-0.3-5.fc20,libmm-qt-1.0.2-1.20140305git0ede8b1.fc20,libnm-qt-0.9.8.2-1.201404225cff3c5.fc20,kde-plasma-nm-0.9.3.4-2.20140520git043bbae.fc20 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
libmm-qt-1.0.2-1.20140305git0ede8b1.fc20, libnm-qt-0.9.8.2-1.201404225cff3c5.fc20, contour-0.3-5.fc20, kde-plasma-nm-0.9.3.4-2.20140520git043bbae.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Problems still persist, that update did non change issue.
We discussed this on IRC and it looks that the problem is not in kde-plasma-nm, because NetworkManager reports same values. Would be great if the reporter could provide all the information we discover during our conversation on IRC.
Hmm, I can't reproduce the core NM issue here. Running "nmcli dev wifi list" I get: SSID MODE CHAN RATE SIGNAL BARS SECURITY * home wifi Infra 11 54 Mbit/s 87 ▂▄▆█ WPA1 WPA2 home wifi Infra 1 54 Mbit/s 52 ▂▄__ WPA1 WPA2 Does "nmcli dev wifi list" report the same signal strength for both APs? Are both APs on the same channel? Is one AP hidden?
When Jan helped me on IRC we tried 'nmcli dev wifi list' as well, and it reported sometimes the same signal, sometimes one of signals (the one I'm connected to) "fluctuates" as I move away from one AP to the other one. When I'm not connected to any of the APs, the same signal strength is reported. When a connection to one of the AP is initiated, the AP I'm not connected to is stuck with the first reported signal strength - and it's often wrong. I say "often", since both APs initially get the signal strength of only one of the APs. I've been unable to determine if there was a prevalence of one AP over the other one in this first phase. Yes, both APs are on the same channel. No, both APs are perfectly visible, not hidden. Right now I'm using a different setup, but I'll be back with the original setup in one week, so I'll be able to reproduce once more - and I'll be able to provide any further requested output.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 20 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 20. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '20'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 20 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 20 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2015-06-23. Fedora 20 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.