haha, found the mistake that was so disturbing ...
%*.s >> %.*s
Not my best day !
I did not know this would remain uncaught by the compiler
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 4:17 PM Julien Chavanton <jchavanton(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I tried adding a watchpoint in GDB I do not seen when
how the data is
replaced by empty characters ...
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 3:31 PM Julien Chavanton <jchavanton(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Sorry, the example was wrong ....
>
> code :
>
> void get_rpl_totag(struct cell *t, struct sip_msg *reply, str *totag) {
> if (reply==FAKED_REPLY || !reply || !reply->to) {
> tmb.t_get_reply_totag(t->uas.request, totag);
> }
> if (totag && totag->s) {
> LM_ERR("reply_totag ok [%p][%d][%*.s]\n", totag->s,
> totag->len, totag->len, totag->s);
> }
> }
> ...
> str ttag = STR_NULL;
> get_rpl_totag(t, reply, &ttag);
> LM_ERR(">>> ttag[%p][%d][%.*s]\n", ttag.s, ttag.len, ttag.len,
ttag.s);
>
>
> outputs :
>
> 0(25920) ERROR: acc [acc_logic.c:97]: get_rpl_totag(): reply_totag ok
> [0x7f0559c2a1e0][41][ ]
> 0(25920) ERROR: acc [acc_logic.c:525]: on_missed(): >>>
> ttag[0x7f0559c2a1e0][41][594d50c3218065a60bb91fd47a70fbc1-857d6855]
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 3:26 PM Julien Chavanton <jchavanton(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I can not find the explanation on why the data memory is different once
>> I return from the function.
>> This is the same process and the same memory address.
>>
>> code :
>>
>> void get_rpl_totag(struct cell *t, struct sip_msg *reply, str *totag) {
>> if (reply==FAKED_REPLY || !reply || !reply->to) {
>> tmb.t_get_reply_totag(t->uas.request, totag);
>> }
>> if (totag && totag->s) {
>> LM_ERR("reply_totag ok [%p][%d][%*.s]\n", totag->s,
>> totag->len, totag->len, totag->s);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> str ttag = STR_NULL;
>> get_rpl_totag(t, reply, &ttag);
>> LM_ERR(">>> to-tag[%p][%d][%.*s]\n", acc_env.to_tag.s,
>> acc_env.to_tag.len, acc_env.to_tag.len, acc_env.to_tag.s);
>>
>>
>> outputs :
>>
>> 0(25216) ERROR: acc [acc_logic.c:97]: get_rpl_totag(): reply_totag ok
>> [0x7fa6a79d81e0][41][ ]
>> 0(25216) ERROR: acc [acc_logic.c:525]: on_missed():
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> to-tag[0x7fa6a79d81e0][41][594d50c3218065a60bb91fd47a70fbc1-857d6855]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:33 AM Julien Chavanton <jchavanton(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Seems to work, I will complete the modifications and make an MR ...
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 12:30 AM Julien Chavanton
<jchavanton(a)gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can see TM API is exposing
>>>>
>>>> tmb.t_get_reply_totag(msg, &to_tag);
>>>>
>>>> looking at what can be done from acc_logic.c
>>>>
>>>> on_missed
>>>>
>>>> /* set env variables */
>>>> env_set_to( get_rpl_to(t,reply) );
>>>> env_set_code_status( code, reply);
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:51 PM Julien Chavanton <
>>>> jchavanton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi, considering this example :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> modparam("acc_json", "acc_missed_flag", 6)
>>>>>
>>>>> failure_route[test] {
>>>>> setflag(6); // MISSED_ACC, the failure will be recorded by ACC
>>>>> t_flush_flags(); // This will set the flags in the newly created
transaction
>>>>> t_reply("500", "Service Unavailable");
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> This does generate an ACC event, however the to-tag is not populated,
my guess this is because the TM callback is done before the to-tag is generated.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if there is a way to populate the to-tag immediately ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I will dig it further, but maybe there is a trick I am missing
>>>>>
>>>>>