i tried again and had the same issue as in 2014, i.e., when this code is executed:
if (ret == 418) {
LM_INFO("Calling rpc->fault(c, 500, \"Wrong ETag\")\n");
rpc->fault(c, 500, "Wrong ETag");
rpc->delayed_ctx_close(dctx);
}
empty xmlrpc reply is produced:
T 2016/12/12 12:40:03.779869 127.0.0.1:45690 -> 127.0.0.1:6060 [AP]
POST /RPC2 HTTP/1.0.
Host: 127.0.0.1.
Connection: close.
User-Agent: OpenSIPg XML_RPC Client.
Content-Type: text/xml.
Content-Length: 972.
.
##
T 2016/12/12 12:40:03.779940 127.0.0.1:45690 -> 127.0.0.1:6060 [AP]
<?xml version="1.0" ?>.
<methodCall>.
.<methodName>pua.publish</methodName>.
.<params>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string>sip:jh@test.tutpro.com</string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string>7776000</string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string>message-summary</string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string>application/simple-message-summary</string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string>.</string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string>foo</string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string>sip:127.0.0.1:5080;transport=tcp</string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string>P-Flags: 0
</string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
..<param>.
...<value>.
....<string>Messages-Waiting: no
Message-Account: sip:jh@vm.test.tutpro.com
Voice-Message: 0/1 (0/0)
</string>.
...</value>.
..</param>.
.</params>.
</methodCall>.
##
T 2016/12/12 12:40:03.781651 127.0.0.1:6060 -> 127.0.0.1:45690 [AP]
HTTP/1.0 200 OK.
Sia: SIP/2.0/TCP 127.0.0.1:45690.
Server: OpenSIPg SIP Proxy (5.0.0-b3 (x86_64/linux)).
Content-Length: 108.
.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<methodResponse>
<params>
<param>
<value></value>
</param>
</params>
</methodResponse>
Everything works fine when pua_send_publish(&publ) returns a non-negative value.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/878#issuecomment-266397589