laforge has submitted this change. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/pysim/+/39867?usp=email )

Change subject: [cosmetic] pySim.transport: Fix spelling/typos in comment ......................................................................

[cosmetic] pySim.transport: Fix spelling/typos in comment

Change-Id: Ia20cc2439bf00c1b6479f36c05514945ac4faf71 --- M pySim/transport/__init__.py 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Approvals: Jenkins Builder: Verified laforge: Looks good to me, approved

diff --git a/pySim/transport/__init__.py b/pySim/transport/__init__.py index 5b0ee07..767691c 100644 --- a/pySim/transport/__init__.py +++ b/pySim/transport/__init__.py @@ -164,8 +164,8 @@ if self.apdu_tracer: self.apdu_tracer.trace_response(apdu, sw, data)

- # The APDU case (See aso ISO/IEC 7816-3, table 12) dictates if we should receive a response or not. If we - # receive a response in an APDU case that does not allow the reception of a respnse we print a warning to + # The APDU case (See also ISO/IEC 7816-3, table 12) dictates if we should receive a response or not. If we + # receive a response in an APDU case that does not allow the reception of a response we print a warning to # make the user/caller aware of the problem. Since the transaction is over at this point and data was received # we count it as a successful transaction anyway, even though the spec was violated. The problem is most likely # caused by a missing Le field in the APDU. This is an error that the caller/user should correct to avoid