22 Apr
2020
22 Apr
'20
3:12 p.m.
hello Daniel
sorry i was quite lost, but it's ok and actually i already have the fix on
most of the live systems since they have a March 2nd commit of 5.3 version,
which already includes it and it works fine
thanks a lot
david
El lun., 6 abr. 2020 a las 14:10, Daniel-Constantin Mierla (<
miconda(a)gmail.com>) escribió:
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(a)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(a)gmail.com>) escribió:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.twitter.com/miconda --
www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
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(a)1.1.18.171: We
activate TEST_XFLAG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2(5231) INFO: Talos-Test Call 500000 / Call-ID 1-25549(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com>) escribió:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.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
-- 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
Listsr-users@lists.kamailio.orghttps://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.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.comwww.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
--