28 Mar
2013
28 Mar
'13
2:40 p.m.
Hi Daniel,
As you suggested, I've implemented an event_route which is run with a
new route_type 'BRANCH_FAILURE_ROUTE'. It seems to work fine so far.
Because I copied the run_failure_route_handlers() function to
run_branch_failure_route_handlers(), it inherited the code for running
callbacks etc and I needed to add callback types for this to compile.
My question is; Should I leave all this callback functionality in place
for the branch_failure route, or is it unnecessary here and should be
removed?
Regards,
Hugh
On 22/03/2013 15:00, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Hello,
On 3/20/13 3:22 PM, Hugh Waite wrote:
--
Hugh Waite
Principal Design Engineer
Crocodile RCS Ltd.
Hi,
To run in an event_route, functions need to have the
EVENT_ROUTE/REQUEST_ROUTE flag set. So far the ones I want to use
already have that, and I can always add that flag if required. I know
functions can check the route type with 'get_route_type()', but for
an event_route this is the same as REQUEST_ROUTE.
For example, I will want to run something like:
branch_failure_route[OUTBOUND_FAIL] {
if (t_check_status("430") {
disable_contact();
t_next_contact_flow();
t_relay();
}
}
I think t_check_status() will return the wrong thing here because of
the route type. Can I work round that in an event_route and are there
any similar implications?
a new internal ID for a route type can be defined if needed, otherwise
you can set the type to a different one than REQUEST_ROUTE if it is
more suitable. This type is set in code before execution of the
routing block, for example in htable:
set_route_type(REQUEST_ROUTE);
init_run_actions_ctx(&ctx);
run_top_route(event_rt.rlist[rt], fmsg, &ctx);
But I would not want to have more routing block names in the config --
at the start of v3.0 (ser-kamailio integration) we even removed some
old ones (local_route being replaced by event_route[tm:local-request]).
Cheers,
Daniel