1 Apr
2020
1 Apr
'20
10:18 a.m.
Hi Daniel,
thanks for the feedback. About your questions: received ACK and CANCEL were
not captured in old versions of the module, so no changes from this point
of view.
But tracing and flagging every request would work without duplicated
messages. Something like this
request_route {
....
if (!is_method("OPTIONS")) {
setflag(CAPTURE_FLAG);
sip_trace();
}
}
I would expect the legacy behavior preserved, but I need to check better
the code to understand how to do. If not possible we should add it to the
documentation.
I will make some tests removing the trace_is_off check for the negative ACK
and make a PR.
Finally I think that we also should align case 3) (siptrace + flag) with
case 1) (transaction tracing) so that the behavior is the same (as I think
was the intention originally).
What do you and other devs think?
Cheers,
Federico
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 4:25 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Federico,
were the received ack and cancel captured automatically in the old version
when sip trace was set for invite? There were many changes in the past
years, but I remember that the flag was mainly for outgoing requests and
matching replies of the transaction for which the flag was set. For
incoming requests sip_trace() function had to be used.
Based on your remark, I think that trace_tm_neg_ack_in() should not check
if the trace-is-off(). It should be set when trace-is-on and that's it for
the transaction.
Feel free to clarify (or propose) the wanted behaviour and then we can
work together to have it as expected. I used sip trace lately for tracing
all traffic (trace_mode=1), no longer doing any filtering for
transactions/dialogs.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 31.03.20 09:09, Federico Cabiddu wrote:
Hi all,
I've been recently testing 5.3.x/master siptrace module, in particular the
new trace mode "t" vs the legacy flag + sip_trace() mode and I've found
some issues with the handling of CANCEL. Specifically, I've tested the
following scenarios:
1) sip_trace_mode("t") on the initial INVITE only: received ACK for
negative replies not captured
2) sip_trace_mode("t") on the initial INVITE and on neg ACK: received ACK
captured twice
3) setflag and sip_trace() on the initial INVITE only: received CANCEL and
ACK not captured (outgoing yes)
4) setflag and sip_trace() on the initial INVITE and ACK: received CANCEL
not captured, received ACK captured twice
5) setflag and sip_trace() for each message (legacy): received CANCEL and
200 captured twice, received ACK captured twice
Digging into the module's code the "culprit" looks to be trace_is_off
function (
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/blob/2768f8ce1cf6da242674e7e40c8e76eb6…)
and the places where it is called.
E.g.: for the case 1), when a negative reply is
received, trace_tm_neg_ack_in is called, which calls inside trace_is_off (
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/blob/2768f8ce1cf6da242674e7e40c8e76eb6…),
which cannot be true unless the ACK has been marked for capture in the
script, in which case it will be capture twice (case 2). The same applies
to the CANCEL for case 3), in trace_onreq_out (callback
for TMCB_E2ECANCEL_IN) trace_is_off because the incoming message is not
flagged. Case 3) should theoretically behave like case 1) according to
commit
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/40e09d8625184f19ff5666a2848cbb8…
.
I'm not really sure if (and how) modify the trace_is_off function or not
calling it in specific cases. E.g.: why calling it in trace_tm_neg_ack_in?
This callback is set when we explicity want to trace a transaction, so why
checking inside if tracing is on? Maybe I'm missing something, but I think
that probably the different behaviors of the modes should be better
specified/decided.
Best regards,
Federico
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing
Listsr-dev@lists.kamailio.orghttps://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.twitter.com/miconda --
www.linkedin.com/in/miconda