[sr-dev] ACC events missing to-tag when doing t_reply

[Julien Chavanton]

Sorry, the example was wrong ....

code :

void get_rpl_totag(struct cell *t, struct sip_msg *reply, str *totag) {
        if (reply==FAKED_REPLY || !reply || !reply->to) {
                tmb.t_get_reply_totag(t->uas.request, totag);
        }
        if (totag && totag->s) {
                LM_ERR("reply_totag ok [%p][%d][%*.s]\n", totag->s,
totag->len, totag->len, totag->s);
        }
}
...
str ttag = STR_NULL;
get_rpl_totag(t, reply, &ttag);
LM_ERR(">>> ttag[%p][%d][%.*s]\n", ttag.s, ttag.len, ttag.len, ttag.s);


outputs :

0(25920) ERROR: acc [acc_logic.c:97]: get_rpl_totag(): reply_totag ok
[0x7f0559c2a1e0][41][                                         ]
0(25920) ERROR: acc [acc_logic.c:525]: on_missed(): >>>
ttag[0x7f0559c2a1e0][41][594d50c3218065a60bb91fd47a70fbc1-857d6855]



On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 3:26 PM Julien Chavanton <jchavanton at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I can not find the explanation on why the data memory is different once I
> return from the function.
> This is the same process and the same memory address.
>
> code :
>
> void get_rpl_totag(struct cell *t, struct sip_msg *reply, str *totag) {
>         if (reply==FAKED_REPLY || !reply || !reply->to) {
>                 tmb.t_get_reply_totag(t->uas.request, totag);
>         }
>         if (totag && totag->s) {
>                 LM_ERR("reply_totag ok [%p][%d][%*.s]\n", totag->s,
> totag->len, totag->len, totag->s);
>         }
> }
>
> str ttag = STR_NULL;
> get_rpl_totag(t, reply, &ttag);
> LM_ERR(">>> to-tag[%p][%d][%.*s]\n", acc_env.to_tag.s, acc_env.to_tag.len,
> acc_env.to_tag.len, acc_env.to_tag.s);
>
>
> outputs :
>
>  0(25216) ERROR: acc [acc_logic.c:97]: get_rpl_totag(): reply_totag ok
> [0x7fa6a79d81e0][41][                                         ]
>  0(25216) ERROR: acc [acc_logic.c:525]: on_missed(): >>>>>>>>>>>
> to-tag[0x7fa6a79d81e0][41][594d50c3218065a60bb91fd47a70fbc1-857d6855]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:33 AM Julien Chavanton <jchavanton at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Seems to work, I will complete the modifications and make an MR ...
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 12:30 AM Julien Chavanton <jchavanton at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I can see TM API is exposing
>>>
>>> tmb.t_get_reply_totag(msg, &to_tag);
>>>
>>> looking at what can be done from acc_logic.c
>>>
>>> on_missed
>>>
>>> /* set env variables */
>>> env_set_to( get_rpl_to(t,reply) );
>>> env_set_code_status( code, reply);
>>> ...
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:51 PM Julien Chavanton <jchavanton at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, considering this example :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> modparam("acc_json", "acc_missed_flag", 6)
>>>>
>>>> failure_route[test] {
>>>>     setflag(6); // MISSED_ACC, the failure will be recorded by ACC
>>>>     t_flush_flags(); // This will set the flags in the newly created transaction
>>>>     t_reply("500", "Service Unavailable");
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> This does generate an ACC event, however the to-tag is not populated, my guess this is because the TM callback is done before the to-tag is generated.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if there is a way to populate the to-tag immediately ?
>>>>
>>>> I will dig it further, but maybe there is a trick I am missing
>>>>
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-dev/attachments/20200731/291a14d0/attachment-0001.htm>