[SR-Dev] tm reply matching, differences to kamailio

[Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul]

On May 20, 2009 at 16:15, Henning Westerholt <henning.westerholt at 1und1.de> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> during my tests for the cr module i noticed some differences in the reply 
> matching in sr tm and kamailio tm. My test "26" basically test the (cr) 
> failure_route functionality with a simple sipp scenario.
> 
> On kamailio 1.5 branch my test is successful, the 503 reply is matched against 
> the first INVITE and the failure_route is entered. On sip-router its not 
> matched, a local 408 is generated after some time. I've attached the sip trace 
> and the debug logs from both tests runs.
> 
> Perhaps the sip-router tm is more strict in the matching, so because of some 
> problem in the sipp scenario it don't match? Would be cool if somebody with 
> more experiences with sr tm could take a look to this. The scenario, 
> configuration and test is test/unit/failure_route.xml, 26.cfg and 26.sh (same 
> directory).

It's a bug, not in tm, but in parse_cseq/parse_method, introduced when 
parse_cseq from ser was merged with parse_cseq from kamailio (we can
celebrate the first discovered merge bug :-).

Thanks for the nice bug report, I'll try to fix it today.

Andrei

[...]