[SR-Users] doubt about xflags
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
miconda at gmail.com
Fri Feb 21 11:20:37 CET 2020
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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <http://sip:7777777@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
>> <mailto:sip%3A%2B9934355692006294 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
>> <mailto:sip%3A%2B9934355692006294 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 List
>>> sr-users at lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users at lists.kamailio.org>
>>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>
>> --
>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com>
>> www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda>
>> Kamailio Advanced Training - March 9-11, 2020, Berlin - www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com>
>> Kamailio World Conference - April 27-29, 2020, in Berlin -- www.kamailioworld.com <http://www.kamailioworld.com>
>>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com>
> www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda>
> Kamailio Advanced Training - March 9-11, 2020, Berlin - www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com>
> Kamailio World Conference - April 27-29, 2020, in Berlin -- www.kamailioworld.com <http://www.kamailioworld.com>
>
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com
www.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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20200221/76bd3095/attachment.html>
More information about the sr-users
mailing list