In my case i need to change the header and then send it. 

Here the case works if i make the changes after i sent the invite and got the reply. As i know the t_on_branch will work after the invite is sent... am i wrong?

There are many questions to ask about the branches... when do they work in a serial manner, when parallel... where can i find it documented best?

 
 
 
 
Hi,

try the following:

route {
  # Whatever you do in your main-route....
   t_on_branch("modify_contact");
# Whatever you do in your main-route, the branch route is
automatically triggered for each branch.
  t_relay();
}

branch_route[modify_contact] {
  remove_hf("Contact");
  append_hf("Contact: sip:whatever at something\r\n");
}

failure_route[failure_from_np] {
  # You need to modify the triggered branch_route again, otherwise the
same branch_route will triggered again...
}

Just calling "append_branch" does not help.

Carsten



On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Uri Shacked <ushacked@gmail.com> wrote:


On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Uri Shacked <uri.shacked@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

 

Following the advice I got on the subject “remove_hf" and "append_hf" one after the other , twice, issue”, I tried to work with the “append_branch()” function.

What I need to do is, after I received the invite from the original user, I use SIP methods to work with the NP server. I subst() the user part, send the call to the NP server, get the reply, parse it and then subst() back to the destination and send the call out.

Doing it with “append_branch” seems logical.

I do “append_branch()” before changing the user,  get the reply (301), goes on to failure route after the branch route was called, and from there I have a problem.

I need to continue my flow without the branch I added. How do I return to the original on?

I read about the t_drop_replies but didn’t quit understand…..

 

BR,

Uri