18 Oct
2017
18 Oct
'17
4:24 a.m.
I noticed that my ul.add command that works OK in 5.0 doesn't anymore
work in 5.1. I get back to the xmlrpc query:
<name>faultString</name>
<value><string>Not enough parameters or wrong
format</string></value>
I then went and compared ul.add in 5.0 and 5.1 and noticed that in 5.1
it has added two optional params:
received (optional) value with the received-from address (source
address) (use '0' or '.' if it should not be set). Format:
sip:srcip:srcport;transport=abc
socket (optional) value with the local socket address (use '0' or
'.' if it should not be set). Format: proto:localip:localport
Note: the position of parameters is relevant, in the case of
optional parameters, use '0' or '.' for parameters that should not
be set which are positioned before any parameter that has to be set.
What does that mean? Isn't optional really optional, but 0 or . is
needed?
-- Juha
18 Oct
18 Oct
5:12 a.m.
Hello,
if you don't need to provide any of those parameters, then it should just
work by not having them in the command.
But, for example, if you want to provide socket only, which is after the
received as parameter order, then you must provide received parameter as
well and use . or 0 to specify that received should not stored.
Cheers,
Daniel
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
I noticed that my ul.add command that works OK in 5.0
doesn't anymore
work in 5.1. I get back to the xmlrpc query:
<name>faultString</name>
<value><string>Not enough parameters or wrong
format</string></value>
I then went and compared ul.add in 5.0 and 5.1 and noticed that in 5.1
it has added two optional params:
received (optional) value with the received-from address (source
address) (use '0' or '.' if it should not be set). Format:
sip:srcip:srcport;transport=abc
socket (optional) value with the local socket address (use '0' or
'.' if it should not be set). Format: proto:localip:localport
Note: the position of parameters is relevant, in the case of
optional parameters, use '0' or '.' for parameters that should not
be set which are positioned before any parameter that has to be set.
What does that mean? Isn't optional really optional, but 0 or . is
needed?
-- Juha
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
5:18 a.m.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
if you don't need to provide any of those
parameters, then it should just
work by not having them in the command.
OK, but it doesn't as the error message told. I should not have made
any changes to that part of code from 5.0 to 5.1, but can recheck.
-- Juha
5:30 a.m.
Juha Heinanen writes:
> if you don't need to provide any of those
parameters, then it should just
> work by not having them in the command.
Perhaps the error is due to this change:
in 5.0:
path value of the contact
in 5.1:
path value with the Path vector (use '0' or '.' if it should not be set)
In my xmlrpc command path param has empty string value:
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string></string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
If that is the reason, would it be possible to make 5.1 backwards
compatible with 5.0?
-- Juha
5:40 a.m.
Juha Heinanen writes:
Perhaps the error is due to this change:
in 5.0:
path value of the contact
in 5.1:
path value with the Path vector (use '0' or '.' if it should not be
set)
In my xmlrpc command path param has empty string value:
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string></string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
This was not the reason. I change path param to
.<param>.
...<value>.
....<string>.</string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
and still the error.
Below is the whole xmlrpc request/response.
-- Juha
-----------------------------
T 2017/10/18 12:36:50.360916 127.0.0.1:58310 -> 127.0.0.1:6060 [AP]
<?xml version="1.0" ?>.
<methodCall>.
.<methodName>ul.add</methodName>.
.<params>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string>location</string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string>foo(a)bar.com</string>;/string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string>sip:foo@vm.bar.com</string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<int>0</int>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<double>0.2</double>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string>.</string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<int>0</int>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<int>16</int>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<int>15</int>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
.</params>.
</methodCall>.
##
T 2017/10/18 12:36:50.361093 127.0.0.1:6060 -> 127.0.0.1:58310 [AP]
HTTP/1.0 200 OK.
Sia: SIP/2.0/TCP 127.0.0.1:58310.
Server: OpenSIPg SIP Proxy (5.1.0-0b4 (x86_64/linux)).
Content-Length: 295.
.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<methodResponse>
<fault>
<value>
<struct>
<member>
<name>faultCode</name>
<value><int>500</int></value>
</member>
<member>
<name>faultString</name>
<value><string>Not enough parameters or wrong
format</string></value>
</member>
</struct>
</value>
</fault>
</methodResponse>
6:25 a.m.
Even in the 5.0 the path was supposed to be 0 if not wanted to be set. It
was the inspiration I had for the other optional parameters I added.
I will look at it. If you can the log messages with debug=3 in the config
for processing the command, I will try to spot it quicly. Otherwise likely
to take 1-2 days until I get back to office and can reproduce myself.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
Juha Heinanen writes:
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Perhaps the error is due to this change:
in 5.0:
path value of the contact
in 5.1:
path value with the Path vector (use '0' or '.' if it should not be
set)
In my xmlrpc command path param has empty string value:
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string></string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
This was not the reason. I change path param to
.<param>.
...<value>.
....<string>.</string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
and still the error.
Below is the whole xmlrpc request/response.
-- Juha
-----------------------------
T 2017/10/18 12:36:50.360916 127.0.0.1:58310 -> 127.0.0.1:6060 [AP]
<?xml version="1.0" ?>.
<methodCall>.
.<methodName>ul.add</methodName>.
.<params>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string>location</string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string>foo(a)bar.com</string>;/string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string>sip:foo@vm.bar.com</string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<int>0</int>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<double>0.2</double>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string>.</string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<int>0</int>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<int>16</int>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<int>15</int>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
.</params>.
</methodCall>.
##
T 2017/10/18 12:36:50.361093 127.0.0.1:6060 -> 127.0.0.1:58310 [AP]
HTTP/1.0 200 OK.
Sia: SIP/2.0/TCP 127.0.0.1:58310.
Server: OpenSIPg SIP Proxy (5.1.0-0b4 (x86_64/linux)).
Content-Length: 295.
.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<methodResponse>
<fault>
<value>
<struct>
<member>
<name>faultCode</name>
<value><int>500</int></value>
</member>
<member>
<name>faultString</name>
<value><string>Not enough parameters or wrong
format</string></value>
</member>
</struct>
</value>
</fault>
</methodResponse>
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
8:09 a.m.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
I will look at it. If you can the log messages with
debug=3 in the config
for processing the command, I will try to spot it quicly. Otherwise likely
to take 1-2 days until I get back to office and can reproduce myself.
I have been busy, but tries by adding to the call two more params with
value ".". The error went away. This short of proves that there is
some bug in the code regarding optionality of the two new params.
-- Juha
12:45 p.m.
On 18.10.17 14:09, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
It proved that the issue was in the rpc module implementation related to
handling of the optional specifier '*' when there were no more params
available. I pushed some patches to both jsonrpcs and xmlrpc, but I
could test only with jsonrpcs. Maybe you can give it a try with latest
master and if all ok it needs to be backported as well.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Training, Nov 13-15, 2017, in Berlin - www.asipto.com
Kamailio World Conference - www.kamailioworld.com
I will look at it. If you can the log messages
with debug=3 in the config
for processing the command, I will try to spot it quicly. Otherwise likely
to take 1-2 days until I get back to office and can reproduce myself.
I have been
busy, but tries by adding to the call two more params with
value ".". The error went away. This short of proves that there is
some bug in the code regarding optionality of the two new params.
2:17 p.m.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
It proved that the issue was in the rpc module
implementation related to
handling of the optional specifier '*' when there were no more params
available. I pushed some patches to both jsonrpcs and xmlrpc, but I
could test only with jsonrpcs. Maybe you can give it a try with latest
master and if all ok it needs to be backported as well.
I tried and with latest master ul.add works with or without the last two
opt params.
-- Juha
2638
days inactive
2638
days old
8 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Juha Heinanen