[SR-Users] Unexpected behavior on tmrec with monthly recurrence
David Gonçalves
david.goncalves at itcenter.com.pt
Wed Mar 4 19:11:01 CET 2020
Hi Daniel,
We were looking into the code and the situation related with the last day
of the month seems to be on the following code on function check_byxxx:
if(_atp->t.tm_mday == (_trp->bymday->xxx[i]*_trp->bymday->req[i]+
_amp->mday)%_amp->mday + (_trp->bymday->req[i]<0)?1:0)
break;
Variable _atp->t.tm_mday contains the value parsed from the timestamp
_atp->t.tm_mday = 31
Variable _trp->bymday->xxx contains the days specified on kamailio tmrec
*bymonthday*
_trp->bymday->xxx[i]=31
Variable _trp->bymday->req specifies if the value defined is positve or
negative
_trp->bymday->req[i]=1
Variable _amp->mday contains the number of days of the month
_amp->mday=31
With this we have:
if(31 == (31*1+31)%31 + (1<0)?1:0)
Since the result is zero, there is no match.
We check the cpl_time, and we think the issue isn't solved there either.
We think the issue could be solved, adding a verification against 0 like
the following example:
if(0 == (_trp->bymday->xxx[i]*_trp->bymday->req[i]+
_amp->mday)%_amp->mday + (_trp->bymday->req[i]<0)?1:0)
break;
Best Regards,
David Gonçalves
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 4:21 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> a typedef cannot be a source of problems or fix them. Thanks for checking
> and testing, though, I wanted to verify it is not something eventually
> fixed in the cplc. I will try to look at it when I get a chance, given it
> is something I wrote long time ago, I may need some time to get refreshed
> with the specs and code...
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
> On 03.03.20 16:59, David Gonçalves wrote:
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> We compare the code from /src/lib/srutils/tmrec with the code from
> /src/modules/cplc.
>
> The algorithm used to calculate the time is the same.
>
> The main difference between them is that module /src/modules/cplc defines
> a variable *tmrec_p pointing to the same struct used by tmrec_t and, the
> functions use tmrec_p instead of tmrec_t*.
>
> Code from tmrec.h:
> typedef struct _tmrec
> {
> ...
> tr_byxxx_t *byday;
> tr_byxxx_t *bymday;
> tr_byxxx_t *byyday;
> tr_byxxx_t *bymonth;
> tr_byxxx_t *byweekno;
> int wkst;
> } tmrec_t;
>
> Code from cpl_time.h:
> typedef struct _tmrec
> {
> ...
> tr_byxxx_p byday;
> tr_byxxx_p bymday;
> tr_byxxx_p byyday;
> tr_byxxx_p bymonth;
> tr_byxxx_p byweekno;
> int wkst;
> } tmrec_t, *tmrec_p;
>
>
> We don't think this could causes the issue verified, but we decided to
> test it out.
> We change the /src/lib/srutils/tmrec to use tmrec_p pointers, test with
> the code compiled, but the behavior is the same.
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 4:56 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for troubleshooting further and reporting back. I actually looked
>> a bit to the code and indeed the months seems to be 0-11.
>>
>> Can you check if the code matches with the one in cpl-c module. The tmrec
>> library I wrote long time ago was embedded in cplc back in the days of
>> 2003-2005, inside the file src/modules/cplc/cpl_time.c.
>>
>> Later when other modules were added needing time recurrence matching,
>> another clone of tmrec library was made internal lib for kamailio (in
>> master now is src/core/utils/tmrec.c, older stable should be
>> src/lib/srutils/tmrec.c), but maybe some bugs were fixed in cpl-c module,
>> as it was quite used in the past, and not propagated to the stand alone lib.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel
>> On 02.03.20 17:48, David Gonçalves wrote:
>>
>> During our tests with yearly scenarios, we think we found two unexpected
>> behaviors.
>>
>> First, on the documentation, it is indicated that months can have a value
>> between 1-12. However, we think that acceptable values can be between 0-11.
>>
>> Second, we tested a yearly recurrence on the last day of the month (e.g.,
>> 31 of December, 30 of November). With a valid timestamp, we always obtain
>> not match on tmrec.
>> We tested the penultimate day of the month (e.g., 30 of December, 29 of
>> November) and, both days work with a valid timestamp.
>>
>> With these scenarios, it seems that the monthly and yearly problems
>> always occur with the last occurrence of an event.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:56 AM David Gonçalves <
>> david.goncalves at itcenter.com.pt> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> During some tests with the module tmrec, we stumble upon an unexpected
>>> behavior of the monthly recurrence with days of the week.
>>> The last week does not match our expected date.
>>> For example, the last Monday of March 2020 is day 30 (fifth Monday of
>>> the month) however, neither the 5MO or -1MO configuration on the bday
>>> parameter match with a timestamp configured to day 30. The same situation
>>> is verified on months with only 4 weeks.
>>>
>>> To easily explain the behavior we create this configuration:
>>>
>>> $var(ts)="1584355625"; # Monday, March 16, 2020 10:47:05
>>> if(tmrec_match("20200101T090000|PT8H|monthly||1|3MO||||","$(var(ts){
>>> s.int})")) {
>>> xlog("L_INFO","Epoch $var(ts) matches with 3MO\n");
>>> }else{
>>> xlog("L_INFO","Epoch $var(ts) doesn't match with 3MO\n");
>>> }
>>>
>>> $var(ts)="1584960425"; # Monday, March 23, 2020 10:47:05
>>> if(tmrec_match("20200101T090000|PT8H|monthly||1|4MO||||","$(var(ts){
>>> s.int})")) {
>>> xlog("L_INFO","Epoch $var(ts) matches with 4MO\n");
>>> }else{
>>> xlog("L_INFO","Epoch $var(ts) doesn't match with 4MO\n");
>>> }
>>>
>>> $var(ts)="1585565225"; # Monday, March 30, 2020 10:47:05
>>> if(tmrec_match("20200101T090000|PT8H|monthly||1|5MO||||","$(var(ts){
>>> s.int})")){
>>> xlog("L_INFO","Epoch $var(ts) matches with 5MO\n");
>>> }else{
>>> xlog("L_INFO","Epoch $var(ts) doesn't match with 5MO\n");
>>> }
>>>
>>> $var(ts)="1584960425"; # Monday, March 23, 2020 10:47:05
>>> if(tmrec_match("20200101T090000|PT8H|monthly||1|-1MO||||","$(var(ts){
>>> s.int})")){
>>> xlog("L_INFO","Epoch $var(ts) matches with -1MO\n");
>>> }else{
>>> xlog("L_INFO","Epoch $var(ts) doesn't match with -1MO\n");
>>> }
>>>
>>> The results were:
>>> Epoch 1584355625 matches with 3MO
>>> Epoch 1584960425 matches with 4MO
>>> Epoch 1585565225 doesn't match with 5MO
>>> Epoch 1584960425 matches with -1MO
>>>
>>> Are we configuring the tmrec_match wrongly?
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Cumprimentos / Best regards,
>>>
>>> *David Gonçalves*
>>> Research and Development Technician
>>>
>>> Phone: +351 256 370 980
>>> Email: david.goncalves at itcenter.com.pt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Cumprimentos / Best regards,
>>
>> *David Gonçalves*
>> Research and Development Technician
>>
>> Phone: +351 256 370 980
>> Email: david.goncalves at itcenter.com.pt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> --
>
>
> Cumprimentos / Best regards,
>
> *David Gonçalves*
> Research and Development Technician
>
> Phone: +351 256 370 980
> Email: david.goncalves at itcenter.com.pt
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
--
Cumprimentos / Best regards,
*David Gonçalves*
Research and Development Technician
Phone: +351 256 370 980
Email: david.goncalves at itcenter.com.pt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20200304/aae4baf6/attachment.html>
More information about the sr-users
mailing list