12 Nov
2009
12 Nov
'09
12:42 a.m.
just when i mentioned in previous email that i don't currently have any
known problems with sr_3.0, a new one hit me.
script calls next_gw(), which results in errors:
Nov 12 07:35:24 localhost /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5495]: INFO: lcr [lcr_mod.c:2062]: appending
branch <sip:110415036078@192.98.101.1:5060>
Nov 12 07:35:24 localhost /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5495]: : <core> [action.c:344]: BUG:
do_action: bad append_branch_t 1
Nov 12 07:35:24 localhost /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5495]: ERROR: <core> [action.c:1251]:
run action error at: :0
Nov 12 07:35:24 localhost /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5495]: ERROR: lcr [lcr_mod.c:2065]:
do_action failed with return value <-5>
the piece of code where the errors comes is this:
uri_str.s = r_uri;
uri_str.len = r_uri_len;
memset(&act, '\0', sizeof(act));
act.type = APPEND_BRANCH_T;
act.val[0].type = STRING_ST;
act.val[0].u.str = uri_str;
act.val[1].type = NUMBER_ST;
act.val[1].u.number = 0;
init_run_actions_ctx(&ra_ctx);
LM_INFO("appending branch <%.*s>\n", uri_str.len, uri_str.s);
rval = do_action(&ra_ctx, &act, _m);
if (rval != 1) {
LM_ERR("do_action failed with return value <%d>\n", rval);
return -1;
}
}
i added the LM_INFO in order to verify validity of the uri and it looks
ok to me.
is this some new bug or what? i haven't seen it earlier although i have
been running the same tests.
-- juha
12 Nov
12 Nov
5:07 a.m.
On Nov 12, 2009 at 07:42, Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
just when i mentioned in previous email that i
don't currently have any
known problems with sr_3.0, a new one hit me.
script calls next_gw(), which results in errors:
Nov 12 07:35:24 localhost /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5495]: INFO: lcr [lcr_mod.c:2062]:
appending branch <sip:110415036078@192.98.101.1:5060>
Nov 12 07:35:24 localhost /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5495]: : <core> [action.c:344]: BUG:
do_action: bad append_branch_t 1
The parameter for the script append branch is now a str and not a
null-terminated string.
I've changed that recently (394e061f) when I've made the script
append_branch more compatible with the k version (force socket a.s.o.).
I haven't thought that someone might use do_action() w/ APPEND_BRANCH_T
instead of directly using append_branch().
Nov 12 07:35:24 localhost /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5495]:
ERROR: <core> [action.c:1251]: run action error at: :0
Nov 12 07:35:24 localhost /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5495]: ERROR: lcr [lcr_mod.c:2065]:
do_action failed with return value <-5>
the piece of code where the errors comes is this:
uri_str.s = r_uri;
uri_str.len = r_uri_len;
memset(&act, '\0', sizeof(act));
act.type = APPEND_BRANCH_T;
act.val[0].type = STRING_ST;
^^^^^^^^^^ replace with
STR_ST.
(for the record, I see you switched to
append_branch()).
act.val[0].u.str = uri_str;
act.val[1].type = NUMBER_ST;
act.val[1].u.number = 0;
init_run_actions_ctx(&ra_ctx);
LM_INFO("appending branch <%.*s>\n", uri_str.len, uri_str.s);
rval = do_action(&ra_ctx, &act, _m);
if (rval != 1) {
LM_ERR("do_action failed with return value <%d>\n", rval);
return -1;
}
}
i added the LM_INFO in order to verify validity of the uri and it looks
ok to me.
is this some new bug or what? i haven't seen it earlier although i have
been running the same tests.
Yes, it's a recent change.
Andrei
4:44 a.m.
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul writes:
I haven't thought that someone might use
do_action() w/ APPEND_BRANCH_T
instead of directly using append_branch().
andrei,
as i mentioned, i converted the do action thing to append_branch. i
still have in lcr module this:
memset(&act, '\0', sizeof(act));
act.type = SET_URI_T;
act.val[0].type = STRING_ST;
act.val[0].u.string = r_uri;
init_run_actions_ctx(&ra_ctx);
rval = do_action(&ra_ctx, &act, _m);
is there a similar high-level replacement for SET_URI_T do_action?
-- juha
5:57 a.m.
On Nov 12, 2009 at 11:44, Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul writes:
Yes, it's rewrite_uri(msg, str uri), but you don't need to change,
SET_URI_T hasn't been modified.
Andrei
I haven't thought that someone might use
do_action() w/ APPEND_BRANCH_T
instead of directly using append_branch().
andrei,
as i mentioned, i converted the do action thing to append_branch. i
still have in lcr module this:
memset(&act, '\0', sizeof(act));
act.type = SET_URI_T;
act.val[0].type = STRING_ST;
act.val[0].u.string = r_uri;
init_run_actions_ctx(&ra_ctx);
rval = do_action(&ra_ctx, &act, _m);
is there a similar high-level replacement for SET_URI_T do_action?
4:53 a.m.
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul writes:
The parameter for the script append branch is now a
str and not a
null-terminated string.
how about the other do_actions that exist in various modules (SET_URI_T
and SET_USET_T atleast), should they too take act.val[0].type STR_ST, or
are they still using STRING_ST?
-- juha
6:23 a.m.
On Nov 12, 2009 at 11:53, Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul writes:
No, they haven't changed. The only one that did was APPEND_BRANCH_T.
I did a quick grep after do_action in all the modules and all invocations
seem ok now.
Andrei
The parameter for the script append branch is now
a str and not a
null-terminated string.
how about the other do_actions that exist in various modules (SET_URI_T
and SET_USET_T atleast), should they too take act.val[0].type STR_ST, or
are they still using STRING_ST?
5533
days inactive
5533
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul -
jh＠tutpro.com -
Juha Heinanen