[sr-dev] [SR-Users] is t_flush_flags() really needed?

Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda at gmail.com
Wed Mar 28 08:49:40 CEST 2018

On 27.03.18 07:40, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> Juha Heinanen writes:
>> While testing xflags, i noticed that a regular flag that I set AFTER
>> calling t_newtrans() stays set in onreply_route even when I do not
>> call t_flush_flags().
> I made the same test with xflags and they do require t_flush_xflags()
> call if an xflag is set after t_newtrans();  So the behavior is not the
> same with flags and xflags.
> This is confusing.  The flags should behave the same way and I would
> prefer the flags way in order to avoid the flush call.
> I added sr-dev to this thread since it now deals also the new feature.
Afaik, flags after t_newtran() were supposed not to be moved to
transaction if t_flush_flags(), that being the purpose of the later
function. Are you doing any other tm operations between creating the new
transaction and relaying the request or end of script execution?


Daniel-Constantin Mierla
www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Training - April 16-18, 2018, Berlin - www.asipto.com
Kamailio World Conference - May 14-16, 2018 - www.kamailioworld.com

More information about the sr-dev mailing list