<div dir="ltr">Hi Daniel,<div>thanks for having a look.<br><div>There is already a callback for negative ACK, my problem was that I was using t_check_trans (tm api) to check if the ACK was a negative ACK, and t_check_trans was calling this callback internally.</div><div>So, if after the sip_trace() call in the script we had a t_check_trans(), the callback itself was called again, thus giving a duplicated message. I've solved using instead t_lookup_request.</div><div>I've pushed another commit on the branch and I'm going to open the PR.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>Federico</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 9:18 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla <<a href="mailto:miconda@gmail.com">miconda@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Hello,</p>
<p>I think it is fine to merge those three commits to master as they
solve some of the reported issue. There is also some work planned
to be done for a global enable/disable tracing to database, so it
makes sense to have all the code in master for combined testing.</p>
<p>Regarding the negative ACK, maybe getting the invite transaction
and seeing if it is a failed transaction is an option. Or simply
adding in tm module a callback for negative ACK.</p>
<p>Cheers,<br>
Daniel<br>
</p>
<div>On 03.04.20 13:48, Federico Cabiddu
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi all,
<div>following the feedback I just pushed a branch (<a href="https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/tree/grumvalski/siptrace_flag_fixes" target="_blank">https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/tree/grumvalski/siptrace_flag_fixes</a>),
which tries to address the issues discussed.</div>
<div>I've tried to split the commits so that each issue is
handled separately.</div>
<div>With the first commit (<a href="https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/b64b3f03a9c6b69587ca360465f091f873f7274b" target="_blank">https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/b64b3f03a9c6b69587ca360465f091f873f7274b</a>)
I fixed the incoming ACK for negative replies tracing: as
discussed it makes no sense to check in the callback if
tracing is enabled or not.</div>
<div>The second commit (<a href="https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/e28f464457eea47cc606c73cbfe4b30fcc8b542a" target="_blank">https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/e28f464457eea47cc606c73cbfe4b30fcc8b542a</a>)
refactors the e2e CANCEL handling. With the
previous implementation the incoming CANCEL captured would
have the ANYADDR set as destination address. This commit also
allows to have exactly the same behavior between transaction
tracing (sip_trace_mode("t")) and legacy tracing (setflag +
sip_trace()) when tracing a specific INVITE.</div>
<div>With the third (<a href="https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/080c6e07708f1964498a43e70c9b6240b5bdebcd" target="_blank">https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/080c6e07708f1964498a43e70c9b6240b5bdebcd</a>)
I've tried as much as possible to restore the legacy behavior
when tracing all the requests without having duplicated
captures for CANCEL and ACK for negative replies. I could
achieve this for the CANCEL checking if the INVITE it refers
to is already being traced (meaning that the CANCEL will be
captured by the callback) but I couldn't for the ACK. I
couldn't find a way to check if the ACK is for a negative
reply (and thus it belongs to a transaction), without having
the tm callbacks for ACK run, since both t_check and
t_check_trans tm calls run the E2ECANCEL_IN<span style="color:rgb(24,178,24);font-family:monospace"> </span>callbacks.</div>
<div>I've tried different scenarios in both capturing modes
(transaction and flag+trace):</div>
<div>1) Successful call (INVITE-200-ACK)</div>
<div>2) Error replied</div>
<div>3) Canceled call</div>
<div>4) locally generated CANCEL (timeout)</div>
<div>All looks good (except for the ACK issue) in both modes.</div>
<div>I would like to have the developers' feedback before
opening a PR, there could be other scenarios/use cases I'm not
considering here.</div>
<div>Thank you all.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Federico</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 2:45 PM
Federico Cabiddu <<a href="mailto:federico.cabiddu@gmail.com" target="_blank">federico.cabiddu@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Hi,</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>OK, indeed, the previous behavior should be
preserved in this case. Is sip_trace() without
params now doing transaction mode capturing?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Yes and no. Transaction mode is activated but actual
behavior is not exactly the same (see case 3) vs case
1)). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Federico</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre cols="72">--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- <a href="http://www.asipto.com" target="_blank">www.asipto.com</a>
<a href="http://www.twitter.com/miconda" target="_blank">www.twitter.com/miconda</a> -- <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda" target="_blank">www.linkedin.com/in/miconda</a></pre>
</div>
</blockquote></div>