[SR-Users] doubt about xflags

[David Escartin]

hello Daniel

sorry i was quite lost, but it's ok and actually i already have the fix on
most of the live systems since they have a March 2nd commit of 5.3 version,
which already includes it and it works fine

thanks a lot
david

El lun., 6 abr. 2020 a las 14:10, Daniel-Constantin Mierla (<
miconda at gmail.com>) escribió:

> Hello,
>
> that change was pushed to 5.3 at that moment, as I wrote in the email. If
> you still get the issue with branch 5.3, let me know.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
> On 06.04.20 10:48, David Escartin wrote:
>
> Dear Daniel
>
> hope everything is ok.
> Sorry if i missed something, but this was changed already backported from
> master to 5.3 yet?
>
> thanks  alot and regards
> david
>
> El vie., 21 feb. 2020 a las 11:20, Daniel-Constantin Mierla (<
> miconda at gmail.com>) escribió:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> ok, good to know works fine now! Thanks for troubleshooting and testing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel
>> On 21.02.20 10:11, David Escartin wrote:
>>
>> hello Daniel
>>
>> I made a try on the latest master branch commit and seems ok now
>> thanks a lot!
>>
>> david
>>
>>
>> El vie., 21 feb. 2020 a las 8:45, Daniel-Constantin Mierla (<
>> miconda at gmail.com>) escribió:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> good catch, I pushed a patch to propagate xflags on msg_apply_changes()
>>> in master and backported to 5.3 and 5.2. Give it a try with any of the
>>> branches and let me know if works fine now.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Daniel
>>> On 21.02.20 08:29, David Escartin wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Daniel
>>>
>>> i made some more tests and i could see that it's after
>>> executing msg_apply_changes function that the xflag is lost. The original
>>> message transaction flags remain activated after msg_apply_changes.
>>>
>>> i did an execution on debug but i saw no information more than
>>>
>>>  2(5231) INFO: Talos-Test Call 500000 / Call-ID 1-25549 at 1.1.18.171: We
>>> activate TEST_XFLAG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>  2(5231) INFO: Talos-Test Call 500000 / Call-ID 1-25549 at 1.1.18.171:
>>> TEST_XFLAG TRUE!!!!
>>>  2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/msg_translator.c:3262]:
>>> sip_msg_update_buffer(): SIP message content updated - reparsing
>>>  2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:610]: parse_msg(): SIP
>>> Request:
>>>  2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:612]: parse_msg():
>>>  method:  <INVITE>
>>>  2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:614]: parse_msg():
>>>  uri:     <sip:7777777 at 2.2.2.26:5060>
>>>  2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:616]: parse_msg():
>>>  version: <SIP/2.0>
>>>  2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_via.c:1303]:
>>> parse_via_param(): Found param type 235, <rport> = <n/a>; state=6
>>>  2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_via.c:1303]:
>>> parse_via_param(): Found param type 232, <branch> =
>>> <z9hG4bK-5aaf0472f30d11e68aeff8bc1239f520>; state=6
>>>  2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_via.c:1303]:
>>> parse_via_param(): Found param type 253, <sig> = <74e198e2>; state=16
>>>  2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_via.c:2639]: parse_via(): end
>>> of header reached, state=5
>>>  2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:498]: parse_headers():
>>> Via found, flags=2
>>>  2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:500]: parse_headers():
>>> this is the first via
>>>  2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_addr_spec.c:864]:
>>> parse_addr_spec(): end of header reached, state=10
>>>  2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:171]: get_hdr_field():
>>> <To> [83]; uri=[sip:+9934355692006294 at 1.1.14.173
>>> ;transport=udp;user=phone]
>>>  2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:174]: get_hdr_field():
>>> to body ["+0034355692006294"<sip:+9934355692006294 at 1.1.14.173
>>> ;transport=udp;user=phone>
>>> ], to tag []
>>>  2(5231) INFO: Talos-Test Call 500000 / Call-ID 1-25549 at 1.1.18.171:
>>> TEST_XFLAG after msg_apply_changes FALSE!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> best regards
>>> david
>>>
>>> El jue., 20 feb. 2020 a las 20:45, Daniel-Constantin Mierla (<
>>> miconda at gmail.com>) escribió:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> have you set the flags before creating the transaction? Can you test if
>>>> you set a normal flag and an xflag at the same place in request route, is
>>>> the first visible in onreply route and the xflag not?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Daniel
>>>> On 20.02.20 18:05, David Escartin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear all
>>>>
>>>> one quick question, reading the module corex doc, seems that xflag are
>>>> message(transaction) flags. But I made a test and seems for some reason the
>>>> flag is not seeing activated at the onreply_route, when it's activated on
>>>> the request route. Seemed more like a script flag behaviour. Maybe I'm
>>>> missing something?
>>>>
>>>> thanks a lot and regards
>>>> david
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing Listsr-users at lists.kamailio.orghttps://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>>>> Kamailio Advanced Training - March 9-11, 2020, Berlin - www.asipto.com
>>>> Kamailio World Conference - April 27-29, 2020, in Berlin -- www.kamailioworld.com
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>>> Kamailio Advanced Training - March 9-11, 2020, Berlin - www.asipto.com
>>> Kamailio World Conference - April 27-29, 2020, in Berlin -- www.kamailioworld.com
>>>
>>> --
>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>> Kamailio Advanced Training - March 9-11, 2020, Berlin - www.asipto.com
>> Kamailio World Conference - April 27-29, 2020, in Berlin -- www.kamailioworld.com
>>
>> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20200422/d9222fce/attachment.html>