6 Apr
2020
6 Apr
'20
12:10 p.m.
Hello,
that change was pushed to 5.3 at that moment, as I wrote in the email. If you still get the issue with branch 5.3, let me know.
Cheers, Daniel
On 06.04.20 10:48, David Escartin wrote:
Dear Daniel
hope everything is ok. Sorry if i missed something, but this was changed already backported from master to 5.3 yet?
thanks alot and regards david
El vie., 21 feb. 2020 a las 11:20, Daniel-Constantin Mierla (<miconda@gmail.com mailto:miconda@gmail.com>) escribió:
Hello, ok, good to know works fine now! Thanks for troubleshooting and testing. Cheers, Daniel On 21.02.20 10:11, David Escartin wrote:hello Daniel I made a try on the latest master branch commit and seems ok now thanks a lot! david El vie., 21 feb. 2020 a las 8:45, Daniel-Constantin Mierla (<miconda@gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>>) escribió: Hello, good catch, I pushed a patch to propagate xflags on msg_apply_changes() in master and backported to 5.3 and 5.2. Give it a try with any of the branches and let me know if works fine now. Cheers, Daniel On 21.02.20 08:29, David Escartin wrote:Hello Daniel i made some more tests and i could see that it's after executing msg_apply_changes function that the xflag is lost. The original message transaction flags remain activated after msg_apply_changes. i did an execution on debug but i saw no information more than 2(5231) INFO: Talos-Test Call 500000 / Call-ID 1-25549@1.1.18.171 <mailto:1-25549@1.1.18.171>: We activate TEST_XFLAG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2(5231) INFO: Talos-Test Call 500000 / Call-ID 1-25549@1.1.18.171 <mailto:1-25549@1.1.18.171>: TEST_XFLAG TRUE!!!! 2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/msg_translator.c:3262]: sip_msg_update_buffer(): SIP message content updated - reparsing 2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:610]: parse_msg(): SIP Request: 2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:612]: parse_msg(): method: <INVITE> 2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:614]: parse_msg(): uri: <sip:7777777@2.2.2.26:5060 <http://sip:7777777@2.2.2.26:5060>> 2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:616]: parse_msg(): version: <SIP/2.0> 2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_via.c:1303]: parse_via_param(): Found param type 235, <rport> = <n/a>; state=6 2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_via.c:1303]: parse_via_param(): Found param type 232, <branch> = <z9hG4bK-5aaf0472f30d11e68aeff8bc1239f520>; state=6 2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_via.c:1303]: parse_via_param(): Found param type 253, <sig> = <74e198e2>; state=16 2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_via.c:2639]: parse_via(): end of header reached, state=5 2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:498]: parse_headers(): Via found, flags=2 2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:500]: parse_headers(): this is the first via 2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_addr_spec.c:864]: parse_addr_spec(): end of header reached, state=10 2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:171]: get_hdr_field(): <To> [83]; uri=[sip:+9934355692006294@1.1.14.173 <mailto:sip%3A%2B9934355692006294@1.1.14.173>;transport=udp;user=phone] 2(5231) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:174]: get_hdr_field(): to body ["+0034355692006294"<sip:+9934355692006294@1.1.14.173 <mailto:sip%3A%2B9934355692006294@1.1.14.173>;transport=udp;user=phone> ], to tag [] 2(5231) INFO: Talos-Test Call 500000 / Call-ID 1-25549@1.1.18.171 <mailto:1-25549@1.1.18.171>: TEST_XFLAG after msg_apply_changes FALSE!!!! best regards david El jue., 20 feb. 2020 a las 20:45, Daniel-Constantin Mierla (<miconda@gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>>) escribió: Hello, have you set the flags before creating the transaction? Can you test if you set a normal flag and an xflag at the same place in request route, is the first visible in onreply route and the xflag not? Cheers, Daniel On 20.02.20 18:05, David Escartin wrote:Dear all one quick question, reading the module corex doc, seems that xflag are message(transaction) flags. But I made a test and seems for some reason the flag is not seeing activated at the onreply_route, when it's activated on the request route. Seemed more like a script flag behaviour. Maybe I'm missing something? thanks a lot and regards david _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com> www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda> Kamailio Advanced Training - March 9-11, 2020, Berlin - www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com> Kamailio World Conference - April 27-29, 2020, in Berlin -- www.kamailioworld.com <http://www.kamailioworld.com>-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com> www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda> Kamailio Advanced Training - March 9-11, 2020, Berlin - www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com> Kamailio World Conference - April 27-29, 2020, in Berlin -- www.kamailioworld.com <http://www.kamailioworld.com>-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com> www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda> Kamailio Advanced Training - March 9-11, 2020, Berlin - www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com> Kamailio World Conference - April 27-29, 2020, in Berlin -- www.kamailioworld.com <http://www.kamailioworld.com>
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com
www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda