28 May
2004
28 May
'04
3:51 a.m.
The root reason is that 'status' is not
intended for use in
failure_route. (I hope we never advertised it was.) We should
No you didn't advertise it. It's only my common sense of assuming
'status'
is also available in failure_route got it wrong. I should never do that.
Indeed, there are a couple of functions in the TM module which have no
documentation. I understand you guys are busy and will try digging in the
code for answer. I wouldn't brother you unless I ran into situation like
this. However, would you mind describing what t_forward_noack_uri() and
t_write_req() does and some example scripts.
obviously make it impossible to avoid confusion. I
think that
enabling t_check_status from reply_route and removing
'status' will do it.
Before you go on removing 'status', can you confirm the question in the next
paragraph?
Note there is a great difference between what status and
t_check_status do. 'status' refers to currenlty received
reply in onreply_route. failure_route is very different --
failure_route returns to processing of the original request,
with which several replies may be associated. t_check_status
thus first does a branch picking process, selects
a branch SER would use if you did nothing else, and that's
what you receive.
Does that mean t_check_status is parallel forking safe in reply_route? I
wouldn't want a DND from a client in a group pickup affect the end result of
the call.