DG-DEN-14689

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

Fixed. Thanks!

Fixed. Thanks!

Fixed. Thanks!

Fixed. Thanks!

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

I believe this MSG_ID is being removed in another branch

I believe this MSG_ID is being removed in another branch

happens in FW common. This branch wasn't created at the start and our automated scripted ended up created its own code review. See: http://devapps.diality.us:8060/cru/DG-DEN-14689-2 Ill reorganize ...

happens in FW common. This branch wasn't created at the start and our automated scripted ended up created its own code review. See: http://devapps.diality.us:8060/cru/DG-DEN-14689-2
Ill reorganize the review naming shortly.

Should REQUEST be moved to end of name? Seems like there are many enum names where REQUEST is not at end of name.

Should REQUEST be moved to end of name? Seems like there are many enum names where REQUEST is not at end of name.

Is this a response to request above or a data broadcast?

Is this a response to request above or a data broadcast?

Should this have _REQUEST added to end?

Should this have _REQUEST added to end?

RESOLVED IN CODE WALKTHROUGH

RESOLVED IN CODE WALKTHROUGH

RESOLVED IN CODE WALKTHROUGH

RESOLVED IN CODE WALKTHROUGH

RESOLVED IN CODE WALKTHROUGH

RESOLVED IN CODE WALKTHROUGH

RESOLVED IN CODE WALKTHROUGH

RESOLVED IN CODE WALKTHROUGH

RESOLVED IN CODE WALKTHROUGH

RESOLVED IN CODE WALKTHROUGH

DG-DEN-14689_Messaging Bugs_FW_Common
DG-DEN-14689_Messaging Bugs_FW_Common
I don't see DG changes using new ENUM names.

I don't see DG changes using new ENUM names.

Comment alignment (3x 147, 151, 157)

Comment alignment (3x 147, 151, 157)

//* ?

//* ?

//* ?

//* ?

//* ?

//* ?

//* ?

//* ?

DG-DEN-14689_Messaging Bugs_DGFW_and_Common
DG-DEN-14689_Messaging Bugs_DGFW_and_Common