Re: [sr-dev] ACC events missing to-tag when doing t_reply

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 >>> >>>