#### Pre-Submission Checklist <!-- Go over all points below, and after creating the PR, tick all the checkboxes that apply --> <!-- All points should be verified, otherwise, read the CONTRIBUTING guidelines from above--> <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask on sr-dev mailing list --> - [x] Commit message has the format required by CONTRIBUTING guide - [x] Commits are split per component (core, individual modules, libs, utils, ...) - [x] Each component has a single commit (if not, squash them into one commit) - [x] No commits to README files for modules (changes must be done to docbook files in `doc/` subfolder, the README file is autogenerated)
#### Type Of Change - [ ] Small bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) - [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds new functionality) - [x] Breaking change (fix or feature that would change existing functionality)
#### Checklist: <!-- Go over all points below, and after creating the PR, tick the checkboxes that apply --> - [ ] PR should be backported to stable branches - [x] Tested changes locally
#### Description <!-- Describe your changes in detail --> if index is 0 there were no way to know if the index was there
$x_hdr(A) = "value" needs to append a value $(x_hdr(A)[0]) = "value" needs to set the value
pv_parse_spec(str *s, pv_spec_p p) was always setting p->pvp.pvi.type to 0 == PV_IDX_INT You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/2341
-- Commit Summary --
* core: PV_IDX_NONE to point that pv had no index
-- File Changes --
M src/core/pvapi.c (7) M src/core/pvar.h (1)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/2341.patch https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/2341.diff
@linuxmaniac pushed 1 commit.
9ac856fc3794699c09717264694956f2f3f148f7 pv: fix for new PV_IDX_NONE value
If no objections, I will merge this PR tomorrow
No objections, just one question - is my assumption correct that this will not change the PV behaviour for existing ***common*** use cases?
No objections, just one question - is my assumption correct that this will not change the PV behaviour for existing _**common**_ use cases?
I didn't spot any other problems a part of the ones fixed at 9ac856fc3794699c09717264694956f2f3f148f7
Ok, thank you.
Merged #2341 into master.