5 Sep
2014
5 Sep
'14
1:16 p.m.
looking at the code, i appears that mt_match does not initialize
pv_values pv when it stores matched values thus keeping possible
existing values from previous calls. is that intended behavior? readme
uses word "store".
-- juha
5 Sep
5 Sep
3:41 p.m.
On 05/09/14 12:16, Juha Heinanen wrote:
looking at the code, i appears that mt_match does not
initialize
pv_values pv when it stores matched values thus keeping possible
existing values from previous calls. is that intended behavior? readme
uses word "store".
Don't remember by hard exactly what to refer to,
but if it is about
result pv, some types cannot be initialized (e.g., avp/xavp).
If you have something particular in mind, make a patch and we can see if
there is any side effect. Otherwise, I would expect to use the result pv
only if the match is successful, therefore not needing/expecting the
previous values.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany
3:57 p.m.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
On 05/09/14 12:16, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> looking at the code, i appears that mt_match does not initialize
> pv_values pv when it stores matched values thus keeping possible
> existing values from previous calls. is that intended behavior? readme
> uses word "store".
Don't remember by hard exactly what to refer to,
but if it is about
result pv, some types cannot be initialized (e.g., avp/xavp).
If you have something particular in mind, make a patch
and we can see if
there is any side effect. Otherwise, I would expect to use the result pv
only if the match is successful, therefore not needing/expecting the
previous values.
i would just like to call destroy_avps, before starting to add matching
values to the avp. otherwise the avp may have old values from previous
mt_match call.
-- juha
4 p.m.
On 05/09/14 14:57, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
IIRC, there can be other types of variables used to store the
result,
thus I am not sure that is easily possible for all cases.
If you get a patch you think is solving it, then I would not mind having
it if there are no side effects.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany
On 05/09/14 12:16, Juha Heinanen wrote:
i would just like to call destroy_avps, before starting to add
matching
values to the avp. otherwise the avp may have old values from previous
mt_match call. looking at the code, i appears that mt_match does
not initialize
pv_values pv when it stores matched values thus keeping possible
existing values from previous calls. is that intended behavior? readme
uses word "store".
Don't remember by hard exactly what to refer to,
but if it is about
result pv, some types cannot be initialized (e.g., avp/xavp).
If you have something particular in mind, make a patch and we can see if
there is any side effect. Otherwise, I would expect to use the result pv
only if the match is successful, therefore not needing/expecting the
previous values.
4:07 p.m.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
IIRC, there can be other types of variables used to
store the result,
thus I am not sure that is easily possible for all cases.
doesn't this values_param check mean that the param must be avp?
if (pv_parse_spec(&values_param, &pv_values) <0
|| pv_values.type != PVT_AVP) {
LM_ERR("cannot parse values avp\n");
return -1;
}
-- juha
4:20 p.m.
On 05/09/14 15:07, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
I had in mind pv_value (which I added), but I see there is also
pv_values (most probably added by you?!?), which I don't remember using
it for my configs.
Looks like it is ok to add that given the restrictions on pv type. If
nobody else has concerns on side effects, it is fine for me to call
destroy avps.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany
IIRC, there can be other types of variables used
to store the result,
thus I am not sure that is easily possible for all cases.
doesn't this
values_param check mean that the param must be avp?
if (pv_parse_spec(&values_param, &pv_values) <0
|| pv_values.type != PVT_AVP) {
LM_ERR("cannot parse values avp\n");
return -1;
}
3733
days inactive
3733
days old
5 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Juha Heinanen