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: We activate TEST_XFLAG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 2(5231) INFO: Talos-Test Call 500000 / Call-ID 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>
 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;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;transport=udp;user=phone>
], to tag []
 2(5231) INFO: Talos-Test Call 500000 / Call-ID 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>) 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
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com
www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Training - March 9-11, 2020, Berlin - www.asipto.com
Kamailio World Conference - April 27-29, 2020, in Berlin -- www.kamailioworld.com

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com
www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Training - March 9-11, 2020, Berlin - www.asipto.com
Kamailio World Conference - April 27-29, 2020, in Berlin -- www.kamailioworld.com