16 Aug
2006
16 Aug
'06
9:01 p.m.
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:27:20 +0300
From: OpenSer Users <openser-users(a)list.coretech.ro>
Subject: [Users] heders in route & failure_route blocks
To: users(a)openser.org
Message-ID: <44CF48A8.4020503(a)list.coretech.ro>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
hello,
I want to add Remote-Party-ID header in route block and
change it in
failure_route block.
the problem is that after the failure_route block the message sent out
has two Remote-Party-ID headers.
in failure_route I am using
remove_hf("Remote-Party-ID")
scenario:
original invite has no Remote-Party-ID header
in route block I use: remove_hf("Remote-Party-ID");
append_rpid_hf("<",
">;party=calling;privacy=full")
in failure_route block I use: remove_hf("Remote-Party-ID");
append_rpid_hf("<", ">;party=calling;privacy=off")
the invite sent out after failure_route block has two
Remote-Party-ID
headers, one with privacy=full and another with privacy=off.
is there a way to correct the problem ?
from what I understand the failure_route block works on a copy of the
original message, but the original message has no Remote-Party-ID
header, so why the header from the route block is still visible ?
on the other hand if the header added from the route block is visible
why is it no seen by the remove_hf function ?
thanks,
Razvan Radu
Hi I all so have a similar problem! Is this behavior normal? Is it
possible to have this type of manipulation of the message on the
failure-route?
Thanks in advance,
Jose Silva
17 Aug
17 Aug
6:37 p.m.
From looking at lump creation and processing code, it
seems to me that
this happens because both the lumps related to the route block and
to
the failure route block are applied, and because they are stored in
the lump list according to the offsets in such a way that results in
the 'del' lumps for remove_hf() calls being applied before the 'add'
lumps for append_hf() calls.
Can anyone confirm this?
Shouldn't the route block lumps be cleared in the faked_req when
calling fake_req() in modules/tm/t_reply.c ? This way in the failure
route only the lumps created there will be apllied...?
JF
On 8/16/06, Jose Silva <joesilvas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:27:20 +0300
From: OpenSer Users <openser-users(a)list.coretech.ro>
Subject: [Users] heders in route & failure_route blocks
To: users(a)openser.org
Message-ID: <44CF48A8.4020503(a)list.coretech.ro>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
hello,
I want to add Remote-Party-ID header in route
block and change it in
failure_route block.
the problem is that after the failure_route block the message sent out
has two Remote-Party-ID headers.
in failure_route I am using
remove_hf("Remote-Party-ID")
scenario:
original invite has no Remote-Party-ID header
in route block I use: remove_hf("Remote-Party-ID");
append_rpid_hf("<",
">;party=calling;privacy=full")
in failure_route block I use: remove_hf("Remote-Party-ID");
append_rpid_hf("<", ">;party=calling;privacy=off")
the invite sent out after failure_route block has
two Remote-Party-ID
headers, one with privacy=full and another with privacy=off.
is there a way to correct the problem ?
from what I understand the failure_route block works on a copy of the
original message, but the original message has no Remote-Party-ID
header, so why the header from the route block is still visible ?
on the other hand if the header added from the route block is visible
why is it no seen by the remove_hf function ?
thanks,
Razvan Radu
Hi I all so have a similar problem! Is this behavior normal? Is it
possible to have this type of manipulation of the message on the
failure-route?
Thanks in advance,
Jose Silva
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
7:04 p.m.
JF writes:
Shouldn't the route block lumps be cleared in the
faked_req when
calling fake_req() in modules/tm/t_reply.c ? This way in the failure
route only the lumps created there will be apllied...?
that change cannot be done, because it would break existing openser.cfg
files that assume that headers added in route blocks are also included
in failure_route blocks. perhaps a function that clears all existing
lumps could be introduced.
-- juha
6678
days inactive
6679
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
JF -
Jose Silva -
Juha Heinanen