29 Sep
2022
29 Sep
'22
9:32 p.m.
In my opinion, it does not look right. The kamailio.cfg wrapper function should call the
kemi function, not the other way around.
If it is not an out put script variable, then the parameter should not be provided as
kamailio.cfg pseudo-variable name, but as corresponding value. Practically, the example
above with:
```
KSR.carrierroute.cr_user_carrier("$fU", "$fd", ...
```
Should be:
```
KSR.carrierroute.cr_user_carrier(KSR.kx.get_fuser(), KSR.kx.get_fhost(), ...)
```
Also, looking a bit at the code of the commit, for example:
```
int ki_cr_user_carrier(struct sip_msg * _msg, str *_user,
str *_domain, str *_dstavp) {
// native api already checks if any of required argument is null
// so this is not strictly necessary.
if (!_msg || !_user || !_domain || !_dstavp) {
LM_ERR("missing a required parameter\n");
return -1;
};
return w_cr_load_user_carrier(_msg, _user->s, _domain->s, _dstavp->s);
}
```
The content pointed by `_user->s` is `"$fU"` (considering the example given
in the comment above), and inside `w_cr_load_user_carrier()`:
```
int w_cr_load_user_carrier(struct sip_msg * _msg, char *_user, char *_domain, char
*_dstavp) {
gparam_t *pv_user, *pv_domain, *pv_dstavp;
if (_user == NULL) {
LM_ERR("cannot get the user parameter\n");
return -1;
} else {
pv_user = (gparam_t*)_user;
if (cr_load_user_carrier_fixup((void**)&pv_user, 1) != 0) {
LM_ERR("cannot parse the user parameter\n");
return -1;
}
}
...
```
It is doing fixup (a little bit odd way), but then no free fixup.
Anyhow, this is not the proper way kemi is supposed to work, from the kemi script it
should come direct string (or integer) values, not names of Kamailio-specific
pseudo-variables.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/3247#issuecomment-1262724500
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <kamailio/kamailio/pull/3247/c1262724500(a)github.com>