Re: [SR-Users] Negative return codes from functions

Thanks for the info. In this case, why did (!pike_check_req()) fail to work but (pike_check_req() == -2) worked? Cheers From: sr-users [mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.sip-router.org] On Behalf Of Daniel-Constantin Mierla Sent: 11 February 2016 14:39 To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List &lt;sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org&gt; Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Negative return codes from functions Hello, yes, the return codes are interpreted in a special way, see: - http://www.kamailio.org/wiki/cookbooks/devel/core#return Same applies for the functions exported by the modules. Cheers, Daniel On 11/02/16 13:41, Phil Lavin wrote: Hi all, Just a sanity check, really. Does Kamailio consider negative response codes to be false? For example, should the following log execute? if (!foo()) { # Returns -2 x_log("Foo is false"); } The reason for asking here is that I'm implementing flood protection using pike, based off the kamailio.cfg that ships with v4.3. The logic is thus: if (!pike_check_req()) { # Do blocking } However pike_check_req only returns -1 or -2 in the case of failure, never 0. The blocking code is, thus, never executed. Changing to explicitly check for != 1 works correctly. Am I missing something here or is the example kamailio.cfg incorrect? Cheers _______________________________________________ SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org<mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Book: SIP Routing With Kamailio - http://www.asipto.com http://miconda.eu