11 Oct
2012
11 Oct
'12
11:26 p.m.
Hello,
On 10/11/12 2:19 PM, Alex Hermann wrote:
Hello,
i found that $T_barnch_idx returns inconsistent numbers for the same branch.
If printed in REQUEST_ROUTE, the value is alwasy 1 more that in REPLY_ROUTE.
do you actually mean BRANCH_ROUTE instead of REQUEST_ROUTE?
The branch index is set using
tm_ctx_set_branch_index(branch) in a lot of
places, but only in t_fwd.c it is set with tm_ctx_set_branch_index(branch+1).
If i change that to the same as elsewhere, the numbering is consistent. I'd
like to get an ACK from a tm guru before i commit this fix, because i have
no idea what side-effects this might have.
Indeed it should be same value. Probably when was added first time for
branch_route was more like:
- if 0, then is like unset or before transaction is created
- if >0, then is branch index + 1
To bring proper coherence, I see two options:
- keep 0 for unset and return branch index + 1 otherwise
- use -1 for unset and return branch index otherwise
In either way, the patch has to updated.
Cheers,
Daniel
--- a/modules/tm/t_fwd.c
+++ b/modules/tm/t_fwd.c
@@ -317,7 +317,7 @@ static int prepare_new_uac( struct cell *t, struct sip_msg *i_req,
/* run branch_route actions if provided */
backup_route_type = get_route_type();
set_route_type(BRANCH_ROUTE);
- tm_ctx_set_branch_index(branch+1);
+ tm_ctx_set_branch_index(branch);
/* no need to backup/set avp lists: the on_branch route is run
only in the main route context (e.g. t_relay() in the main
route) or in the failure route context (e.g. append_branch
&
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Training, Berlin, Nov 5-8, 2012 - http://asipto.com/u/kat
Kamailio Advanced Training, Miami, USA, Nov 12-14, 2012 - http://asipto.com/u/katu