Hi all,
I'm tryting to implement a E164 normalizer using the dialplan module, by now I have 3 simple rules:
dpid priority matchop matchex matchlen subsex replaceex attributes 0 1 1 (00|+)([1-9][0-9]+) 0 (00|+)([1-9][0-9]+) \2 0 1 1 ([5-9][0-9]{8}) 0 ([5-9][0-9]{8}) 34\1
The first rule 'it's supposed' to remove + or 00 from full qualified E164 numbers, the seccond rule 'should' add 34 as prefix to all 'valid' spanish numbers, they was running on some little test I did, but when try to put them on pre-production enviroment I get strage results.
I call dp_translate as dp_translate("0","$rU/$rU");
And this what I get :
Input RURI Output RURI 900XXXXXX@dom.tld XXXXXX@dom.tld
And the quetion is why?, are my match rules wrong? why subex and matchex must be the same?
Best regards.
-- Raul Alexis Betancor Santana Dimension Virtual S.L.
On 06.09.2010 13:46, rabs@dimension-virtual.com wrote:
dpid priority matchop matchex matchlen subsex replaceex attributes 0 1 1 (00|+)([1-9][0-9]+) 0 (00|+)([1-9][0-9]+) \2 0 1 1 ([5-9][0-9]{8}) 0 ([5-9][0-9]{8}) 34\1
The first rule 'it's supposed' to remove + or 00 from full qualified E164 numbers, the seccond rule 'should' add 34 as prefix to all 'valid' spanish numbers, they was running on some little test I did, but when try to put them on pre-production enviroment I get strage results.
I call dp_translate as dp_translate("0","$rU/$rU");
And this what I get :
Input RURI Output RURI 900XXXXXX@dom.tld XXXXXX@dom.tld
I'd suppose that both rules match this RURI and since they have the same priority the first one applies.. (00|+) matches 00 in any part of the string, so leading 9 is simply discarded and you get XXXXXX. Try putting it as ^(00|+)([1-9][0-9]+) and ^([5-9][0-9]{8}) to designate start of the string.
On Lunes 06 Septiembre 2010 17:06:41 Andrew Pogrebennyk escribió:
On 06.09.2010 13:46, rabs@dimension-virtual.com wrote:
dpid priority matchop matchex matchlen subsex replaceex attributes 0 1 1 (00|+)([1-9][0-9]+) 0 (00|+)([1-9][0-9]+) \2 0 1 1 ([5-9][0-9]{8}) 0 ([5-9][0-9]{8}) 34\1
The first rule 'it's supposed' to remove + or 00 from full qualified E164 numbers, the seccond rule 'should' add 34 as prefix to all 'valid' spanish numbers, they was running on some little test I did, but when try to put them on pre-production enviroment I get strage results.
I call dp_translate as dp_translate("0","$rU/$rU");
And this what I get :
Input RURI Output RURI 900XXXXXX@dom.tld XXXXXX@dom.tld
I'd suppose that both rules match this RURI and since they have the same priority the first one applies.. (00|+) matches 00 in any part of the string, so leading 9 is simply discarded and you get XXXXXX. Try putting it as ^(00|+)([1-9][0-9]+) and ^([5-9][0-9]{8}) to designate start of the string.
Umm .. it doesn't work, let see:
mysql> select * from dialplan; +----+------+----+----------+------------------------+-----------+------------------------+----------+-------+ | id | dpid | pr | match_op | match_exp | match_len | subst_exp | repl_exp | attrs | +----+------+----+----------+------------------------+-----------+------------------------+----------+-------+ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ^(00|+)([1-9][0-9]+)$ | 0 | ^(00|+) ([1-9][0-9]+)$ | \2 | | | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ^([5-9][0-9]{8})$ | 0 | ^([5-9] [0-9]{8})$ | 34\1 | | +----+------+----+----------+------------------------+-----------+------------------------+----------+-------+
DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:217]: integer value DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:238]: searching 7 DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:326]: input is +34900XXXXXX DEBUG: dialplan [dp_repl.c:300]: regex operator testing DEBUG: dialplan [dp_repl.c:300]: regex operator testing DEBUG: dialplan [dp_repl.c:329]: no matching rule DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:331]: could not translate +34900XXXXXX with dpid 0
Any hit about that? ... If I test the regex in rubular.com it's ok
On Miércoles 08 Septiembre 2010 10:02:14 Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana escribió:
On Lunes 06 Septiembre 2010 17:06:41 Andrew Pogrebennyk escribió:
On 06.09.2010 13:46, rabs@dimension-virtual.com wrote:
dpid priority matchop matchex matchlen subsex replaceex attributes 0 1 1 (00|+)([1-9][0-9]+) 0 (00|+)([1-9][0-9]+) \2 0 1 1 ([5-9][0-9]{8}) 0 ([5-9][0-9]{8}) 34\1
The first rule 'it's supposed' to remove + or 00 from full qualified E164 numbers, the seccond rule 'should' add 34 as prefix to all 'valid' spanish numbers, they was running on some little test I did, but when try to put them on pre-production enviroment I get strage results.
I call dp_translate as dp_translate("0","$rU/$rU");
And this what I get :
Input RURI Output RURI 900XXXXXX@dom.tld XXXXXX@dom.tld
I'd suppose that both rules match this RURI and since they have the same priority the first one applies.. (00|+) matches 00 in any part of the string, so leading 9 is simply discarded and you get XXXXXX. Try putting it as ^(00|+)([1-9][0-9]+) and ^([5-9][0-9]{8}) to designate start of the string.
Umm .. it doesn't work, let see:
mysql> select * from dialplan; +----+------+----+----------+------------------------+-----------+--------- ---------------+----------+-------+
| id | dpid | pr | match_op | match_exp | match_len | | subst_exp repl_exp | attrs |
+----+------+----+----------+------------------------+-----------+--------- ---------------+----------+-------+
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ^(00|+)([1-9][0-9]+)$ | 0 | ^(00|+)
([1-9][0-9]+)$ | \2 | |
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ^([5-9][0-9]{8})$ | 0 | ^([5-9]
[0-9]{8})$ | 34\1 | | +----+------+----+----------+------------------------+-----------+--------- ---------------+----------+-------+
DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:217]: integer value DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:238]: searching 7 DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:326]: input is +34900XXXXXX DEBUG: dialplan [dp_repl.c:300]: regex operator testing DEBUG: dialplan [dp_repl.c:300]: regex operator testing DEBUG: dialplan [dp_repl.c:329]: no matching rule DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:331]: could not translate +34900XXXXXX with dpid 0
Any hit about that? ... If I test the regex in rubular.com it's ok
Maybe something related to the slash symbol? ... because the second rule works ok.
DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:217]: integer value DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:238]: searching 7 DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:326]: input is 657XXXXXX DEBUG: dialplan [dp_repl.c:300]: regex operator testing DEBUG: dialplan [dp_repl.c:300]: regex operator testing DEBUG: dialplan [dp_repl.c:334]: found a matching rule 0xb50e67e0: pr 1, match_exp ^([5-9][0-9]{8})$ DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:335]: input 657421473 with dpid 0 => output 34657XXXXXX
Best regards
On 9/8/10 11:14 AM, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana wrote:
On Miércoles 08 Septiembre 2010 10:02:14 Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana escribió:
On Lunes 06 Septiembre 2010 17:06:41 Andrew Pogrebennyk escribió:
On 06.09.2010 13:46, rabs@dimension-virtual.com wrote:
dpid priority matchop matchex matchlen subsex replaceex attributes 0 1 1 (00|+)([1-9][0-9]+) 0 (00|+)([1-9][0-9]+) \2 0 1 1 ([5-9][0-9]{8}) 0 ([5-9][0-9]{8}) 34\1
The first rule 'it's supposed' to remove + or 00 from full qualified E164 numbers, the seccond rule 'should' add 34 as prefix to all 'valid' spanish numbers, they was running on some little test I did, but when try to put them on pre-production enviroment I get strage results.
I call dp_translate as dp_translate("0","$rU/$rU");
And this what I get :
Input RURI Output RURI 900XXXXXX@dom.tld XXXXXX@dom.tld
I'd suppose that both rules match this RURI and since they have the same priority the first one applies.. (00|+) matches 00 in any part of the string, so leading 9 is simply discarded and you get XXXXXX. Try putting it as ^(00|+)([1-9][0-9]+) and ^([5-9][0-9]{8}) to designate start of the string.
Umm .. it doesn't work, let see:
mysql> select * from dialplan; +----+------+----+----------+------------------------+-----------+--------- ---------------+----------+-------+
| id | dpid | pr | match_op | match_exp | match_len | | subst_exp repl_exp | attrs |
+----+------+----+----------+------------------------+-----------+--------- ---------------+----------+-------+
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ^(00|+)([1-9][0-9]+)$ | 0 | ^(00|+)
([1-9][0-9]+)$ | \2 | |
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ^([5-9][0-9]{8})$ | 0 | ^([5-9]
[0-9]{8})$ | 34\1 | | +----+------+----+----------+------------------------+-----------+--------- ---------------+----------+-------+
DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:217]: integer value DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:238]: searching 7 DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:326]: input is +34900XXXXXX DEBUG: dialplan [dp_repl.c:300]: regex operator testing DEBUG: dialplan [dp_repl.c:300]: regex operator testing DEBUG: dialplan [dp_repl.c:329]: no matching rule DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:331]: could not translate +34900XXXXXX with dpid 0
Any hit about that? ... If I test the regex in rubular.com it's ok
Maybe something related to the slash symbol? ... because the second rule works ok.
DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:217]: integer value DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:238]: searching 7 DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:326]: input is 657XXXXXX DEBUG: dialplan [dp_repl.c:300]: regex operator testing DEBUG: dialplan [dp_repl.c:300]: regex operator testing DEBUG: dialplan [dp_repl.c:334]: found a matching rule 0xb50e67e0: pr 1, match_exp ^([5-9][0-9]{8})$ DEBUG: dialplan [dialplan.c:335]: input 657421473 with dpid 0 => output 34657XXXXXX
if you try a number starting with 00 does it match?
Cheers, Daniel
-
Andrew Pogrebennyk -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
rabs＠dimension-virtual.com -
Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana