THIS IS AN AUTOMATED MESSAGE, DO NOT REPLY.
The following task is now closed:
FS#177 - Sanity module fails to reject broken From/ To headers
User who did this - Daniel-Constantin Mierla (miconda)
Reason for closing: Fixed
Additional comments about closing: Check for duplicated tag parameters committed to master branch.
More information can be found at the following URL:
http://sip-router.org/tracker/index.php?do=details&task_id=177
You are receiving this message because you have requested it from the Flyspray bugtracking system. If you did not expect this message or don't want to receive mails in future, you can change your notification settings at the URL shown above.
THIS IS AN AUTOMATED MESSAGE, DO NOT REPLY.
The following task has a new comment added:
FS#196 - rtpproxy timeout functionality via dlg_terminate_dlg mi command
User who did this - Nick Altmann (nikbyte)
----------
rtpproxy "understand" additional parameters only in U command. In other case it sends error. With my patch or without it. Maybe it will be right to write there if (opts.s.s[0] == 'U') && (to_tag.len > 0). I don't know. :-)
----------
More information can be found at the following URL:
http://sip-router.org/tracker/index.php?do=details&task_id=196#comment493
You are receiving this message because you have requested it from the Flyspray bugtracking system. If you did not expect this message or don't want to receive mails in future, you can change your notification settings at the URL shown above.
THIS IS AN AUTOMATED MESSAGE, DO NOT REPLY.
The following task has a new comment added:
FS#197 - pua_dialoginfo: set PUBLISH R-URIs via AVPs
User who did this - Daniel-Constantin Mierla (miconda)
----------
As I could see, there is a wrapper dialog_publish_multi(...) which provides the uri parameter further to dialog_publish(...) anyhow. Shared memory operations are done under lock and should be avoided if not necessary. At the moment, all the extra shm ops are done just for one less condition in the wrapper.
The idea of not sending publish in some cases is good, but should be made consistent, imo, not only for the case of using avps for uris. I would use a dialog flag to detect that. So it will work in all cases, besides being a bit more efficient -- searching in avps list to get none means going over all existing avps and comparing the names.
Two more things:
- when using avps, I saw a check against myself condition -- is it necessary to be hardcoded? Shouldn't be done in the config by admin when setting the avps? It will allow more flexibility there to decide if to send or not to a uri -- just don't add it as avp if no publish to it is desired
- is the patch against master branch?
----------
More information can be found at the following URL:
http://sip-router.org/tracker/index.php?do=details&task_id=197#comment492
You are receiving this message because you have requested it from the Flyspray bugtracking system. If you did not expect this message or don't want to receive mails in future, you can change your notification settings at the URL shown above.
THIS IS AN AUTOMATED MESSAGE, DO NOT REPLY.
The following task has a new comment added:
FS#197 - pua_dialoginfo: set PUBLISH R-URIs via AVPs
User who did this - Jasmin Schnatterbeck (jasmin)
----------
That's also possible, but I think it's a question of the underlying concept - e.g.: normally, a request consists of 3 URIs (from/to/req) and those requests, whose to-Uri==req-Uri are a special kind of request. The idea is to natively represent the information content of the "most regular" request with the structure, but with having the ability to store "special" requests (req uri==to uri) in an efficient way.
So, when sending the requests, the r-uris are obtained using pubruris_caller/callee. The part of code that generates the request (dlg cb) does not have to care about to choose between variables for to-uri and req-uri for each request that is being sent - that is, indeed, not necessary.
But the structure of the memory blocks, the shm pointers reference to, are different depending on whether using the feature or not. In the first case, it is "struct str_list + uristring", in the last case it is "struct str_list" only - and this str_list is not really necessary (in the last case), but makes it possible to have a unique format for the publish-information... and therefore it helps to separate the tasks "collect/decide about request information" and "send requests".
Right, if the feature is enabled (via module parameter) it's responsibility (and freedom) of the script writer to choose appropriate PUBLISH request URIs, that includes the case to not send any PUBLISH request to anyone.
jasmin
----------
More information can be found at the following URL:
http://sip-router.org/tracker/index.php?do=details&task_id=197#comment491
You are receiving this message because you have requested it from the Flyspray bugtracking system. If you did not expect this message or don't want to receive mails in future, you can change your notification settings at the URL shown above.