[sr-dev] git:hpw/branch_failure_route: modules/tm: Initial revision of branch_failure_route

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

Hello,

On 3/20/13 3:22 PM, Hugh Waite wrote:
> Hi,
> To run in an event_route, functions need to have the 
> EVENT_ROUTE/REQUEST_ROUTE flag set. So far the ones I want to use 
> already have that, and I can always add that flag if required. I know 
> functions can check the route type with 'get_route_type()', but for an 
> event_route this is the same as REQUEST_ROUTE.
> For example, I will want to run something like:
>
> branch_failure_route[OUTBOUND_FAIL] {
>     if (t_check_status("430") {
>         disable_contact();
>         t_next_contact_flow();
>         t_relay();
>     }
> }
> I think t_check_status() will return the wrong thing here because of 
> the route type. Can I work round that in an event_route and are there 
> any similar implications?

a new internal ID for a route type can be defined if needed, otherwise 
you can set the type to a different one than REQUEST_ROUTE if it is more 
suitable. This type is set in code before execution of the routing 
block, for example in htable:

         set_route_type(REQUEST_ROUTE);
         init_run_actions_ctx(&ctx);
         run_top_route(event_rt.rlist[rt], fmsg, &ctx);

But I would not want to have more routing block names in the config -- 
at the start of v3.0 (ser-kamailio integration) we even removed some old 
ones (local_route being replaced by event_route[tm:local-request]).

Cheers,
Daniel

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio World Conference, April 16-17, 2013, Berlin
  - http://conference.kamailio.com -