29 Aug
2011
29 Aug
'11
7:54 p.m.
i started to test sr presence and for some reason sr does not send out
any publish request when i issue one via pua_mi.
i have in route [xmlrpc_requests]:
xlog("L_INFO", "Handling XMLRPC $rm from <$si> with body
<$(rb{re.subst,/[\n\r\t]//g})>\n");
set_reply_no_connect();
set_reply_close();
dispatch_rpc();
syslog shows that sr receives xmlrpc request:
Aug 29 19:42:13 sip /usr/sbin/pres-serv[2118]: INFO: Handling XMLRPC
POST from <127.0.0.1> with body <<?xml
version='1.0'?><methodCall><methodName>mi</methodName><params><param><value><string>pua_publish</string></value></param><param><value><string>sip:jh@vm.test.fi</string></value></param><param><value><int>7776000</int></value></param><param><value><string>message-summary</string></value></param><param><value><string>application/simple-message-summary</string></value></param><param><value><string>.</string></value></param><param><value><string>a.1313821931.6178.2.0</string></value></param><param><value><string>P-Flags:
0</string></value></param><param><value><string>Messages-Waiting:yesVoice-Message:
1/1
(0/0)</string></value></param></params></methodCall>>
and wireshark shows that sr xmlrpc server responds to it with 200 ok.
but after than nothing happens, i.e., according to wireshark no publish
request is sent out. i have pua and pua_mi modules loaded and outbound
proxy defined:
modparam("pua", "outbound_proxy", "sip:127.0.0.1:5082")
there is no error messages in syslog. any idea why sr does not send
publish to outbound proxy? this used to work with opensips.
-- juha
29 Aug
29 Aug
9 p.m.
i added some debug to pua_mi/mi_pua_publish() function and
pua/send_publish() function and got to syslog:
Aug 29 20:57:41 sip /usr/sbin/pres-serv[3861]: INFO: pua_mi [mi_func.c:254]: send publish
Aug 29 20:57:41 sip /usr/sbin/pres-serv[3861]: INFO: pua [send_publish.c:403]:
pres_uri=sip:jh@vm.test.fi
Aug 29 20:57:41 sip /usr/sbin/pres-serv[3861]: INFO: pua_mi [mi_func.c:258]: publish
result <418>
pua/send_publish() function and it spits out 418 in this piece of code:
presentity= search_htable(&pres, hash_code);
if(publ->etag && presentity== NULL)
{
lock_release(&HashT->p_records[hash_code].lock);
return 418;
}
any idea, how this hash table gets its contents, because looks like
send_publish() does not find presentity sip:jh@vm.test.f although it
exists in presentity db table?
-- juha
9:49 p.m.
Juha Heinanen writes:
pua/send_publish() function and it spits out 418 in
this piece of code:
presentity= search_htable(&pres, hash_code);
if(publ->etag && presentity== NULL)
{
lock_release(&HashT->p_records[hash_code].lock);
return 418;
}
any idea, how this hash table gets its contents, because looks like
send_publish() does not find presentity sip:jh@vm.test.f although it
exists in presentity db table?
if pua module gets hash table contents from pua table, it is in my case
empty. i tested again the same setup in my opensips presence server
environment, and pua publish worked fine. has anyone succeeded with sr
pua send_publish?
-- juha
10:58 p.m.
Hello,
On 8/29/11 8:49 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Juha Heinanen writes:
looking at the xmlrpc command content, I see the E-Tag value set, for
the first publish, shouldn't it be empty and the presence server returns
the value to be used later for updates?
At the first sight, the condition in the C piece of code above reads
like: if the etag value is publish command is set, there must be a
presentity structure.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- http://www.asipto.com
Kamailio Advanced Training, Oct 10-13, Berlin: http://asipto.com/u/kat
http://linkedin.com/in/miconda -- http://twitter.com/miconda
pua/send_publish() function and it spits out 418
in this piece of code:
presentity= search_htable(&pres, hash_code);
if(publ->etag&& presentity== NULL)
{
lock_release(&HashT->p_records[hash_code].lock);
return 418;
}
any idea, how this hash table gets its contents, because looks like
send_publish() does not find presentity sip:jh@vm.test.f although it
exists in presentity db table?
if pua module gets hash table contents from pua
table, it is in my case
empty.
11:06 p.m.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
looking at the xmlrpc command content, I see the E-Tag
value set, for
the first publish, shouldn't it be empty and the presence server returns
the value to be used later for updates?
daniel,
my app that sends mi pua publish, takes etag from presentity table (if
presentity exists there) and then places it in mi pua publish command.
this works in opensips.
At the first sight, the condition in the C piece of
code above reads
like: if the etag value is publish command is set, there must be a
presentity structure.
this is how i interpret it too. perhaps in case of sr, my app needs to
get it from pua table instead or always use "." as etag value.
-- juha
11:13 p.m.
On 8/29/11 10:06 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
In the
xmlrpc command, there was an etag value, have you tried with '.'
as etag?
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- http://www.asipto.com
Kamailio Advanced Training, Oct 10-13, Berlin: http://asipto.com/u/kat
http://linkedin.com/in/miconda -- http://twitter.com/miconda
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
The presentity table is built when a PUBLISH is received, did you sent
another PUBLISH before so that you have a record in this table? Or how
was it added in this table so that you could get the etag value?
looking at the xmlrpc command content, I see the
E-Tag value set, for
the first publish, shouldn't it be empty and the presence server returns
the value to be used later for updates?
daniel,
my app that sends mi pua publish, takes etag from presentity table (if
presentity exists there) and then places it in mi pua publish command. At the first
sight, the condition in the C piece of code above reads
like: if the etag value is publish command is set, there must be a
presentity structure.
this is how i interpret it too. perhaps in case of sr, my
app needs to
get it from pua table instead or always use "." as etag value.
11:23 p.m.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
The presentity table is built when a PUBLISH is
received, did you sent
another PUBLISH before so that you have a record in this table? Or how
was it added in this table so that you could get the etag value?
there are several sources that can send publish for user's voicemail
box. for example, user can listen voicemails by calling to his/her
voicemail box and in that case publish is send by sems. another
possibility is that use listens voicemail on web page and in that case
web app sends the publish. in both cases, the app first checks from
presentity table which etag to use, because it has no way to know that
some other app has sent publish for the same presentity in the
meantime.
In the xmlrpc command, there was an etag value, have
you tried with '.'
as etag?
i haven't tried with "." etag yet. i'll try that tomorrow.
-- juha
11:30 p.m.
On 8/29/11 10:23 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- http://www.asipto.com
Kamailio Advanced Training, Oct 10-13, Berlin: http://asipto.com/u/kat
http://linkedin.com/in/miconda -- http://twitter.com/miconda
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
OK, I see, so in this case the condition in should be relaxed to allow
sending publish with etag even there is no presentity in pua table.
Cheers,
Daniel
The presentity table is built when a PUBLISH is
received, did you sent
another PUBLISH before so that you have a record in this table? Or how
was it added in this table so that you could get the etag value?
there are several
sources that can send publish for user's voicemail
box. for example, user can listen voicemails by calling to his/her
voicemail box and in that case publish is send by sems. another
possibility is that use listens voicemail on web page and in that case
web app sends the publish. in both cases, the app first checks from
presentity table which etag to use, because it has no way to know that
some other app has sent publish for the same presentity in the
meantime. In the xmlrpc command, there was an etag value,
have you tried with '.'
as etag?
i haven't tried with "." etag yet. i'll try that
tomorrow.
-- juha
30 Aug
30 Aug
8:43 a.m.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
>> In the xmlrpc command, there was an etag
value, have you tried with '.'
>> as etag?
> i haven't tried with "." etag yet. i'll try that tomorrow.
mi pua publish from different UAs on same presentity seems to
work ok, when UAs always use "." as tag param.
-- juha
7 Sep
7 Sep
7:59 p.m.
Hello,
On 8/30/11 7:43 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
based on a quick look over
the code, allowing any etag should be
possible by just removing the condition of an existing presentity when
etag value is given and provide the etag to building PUBLISH headers.
But is has to be tested, since I had no testbed setup for such case.
I am attaching the patch, would be great if you can test and report the
results. Please check if a new record is inserted in the table when 200
ok comes to such publish.
Thanks,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- http://www.asipto.com
Kamailio Advanced Training, Oct 10-13, Berlin: http://asipto.com/u/kat
http://linkedin.com/in/miconda -- http://twitter.com/miconda
>> In the xmlrpc command, there was an etag
value, have you tried with '.'
>> as etag?
> i haven't tried with "." etag yet. i'll try that tomorrow.
mi pua publish from different UAs on same presentity seems to
work ok, when UAs always use "." as tag param.
12 Sep
12 Sep
10:33 a.m.
Hi Juha,
have had any time to try the patch I sent? Thinking of committing it,
but no presence server environment at hand for me to try it quickly...
Thanks,
Daniel
On 9/7/11 6:59 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Hello,
On 8/30/11 7:43 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- http://www.asipto.com
Kamailio Advanced Training, Oct 10-13, Berlin: http://asipto.com/u/kat
http://linkedin.com/in/miconda -- http://twitter.com/miconda
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
based on a quick look
over the code, allowing any etag should be
possible by just removing the condition of an existing presentity when
etag value is given and provide the etag to building PUBLISH headers.
But is has to be tested, since I had no testbed setup for such case.
I am attaching the patch, would be great if you can test and report
the results. Please check if a new record is inserted in the table
when 200 ok comes to such publish.
Thanks,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >> In the xmlrpc command, there was an etag
value, have you tried
>> with '.'
>> as etag?
> i haven't tried with "." etag yet. i'll try that tomorrow.
mi pua publish from different UAs on same presentity seems to
work ok, when UAs always use "." as tag param.
10:47 a.m.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
have had any time to try the patch I sent? Thinking of
committing it,
but no presence server environment at hand for me to try it quickly...
daniel,
sorry, i forgot about it. is it really a good idea to allow any etag?
would it be better to require that etag matches if given and is not "."?
i was able to solve my problem by always using ".", when there are more
than one source that can issue publish for the same presentity.
-- juha
11:35 a.m.
Hello,
On 9/12/11 9:47 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
based on
your previous emails, looked like useful when publishing is
done from different points, personally I haven't come to such needs.
have had any time to try the patch I sent?
Thinking of committing it,
but no presence server environment at hand for me to try it quickly...
daniel,
sorry, i forgot about it. is it really a good idea to allow any etag? would it be better to require that etag matches if
given and is not "."?
i was able to solve my problem by always using ".", when there are more
than one source that can issue publish for the same presentity.
By using
".", the presence server will create a new e-tag, right? It is
not an update to an existing presence document, but creation of a new one.
Perhaps the best would be to me able to control this matching, to force
or not when etag is present. From code point of view, even there is no
record in PUA matching the etag, the publish is sent and added in PUA
table only in case of 200ok. So, if there is no etag match on server
side, then the return code should be 412 (iirc atm), so no new record
added in pua.
All seemed to be fine, anyhow, ultimately we can leave the patch for 3.3
if you don't need it and nobody else wants it for the moment -- I can
upload it on tracker for availability.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- http://www.asipto.com
Kamailio Advanced Training, Oct 10-13, Berlin: http://asipto.com/u/kat
http://linkedin.com/in/miconda -- http://twitter.com/miconda
12:01 p.m.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
By using ".", the presence server will
create a new e-tag, right? It is
not an update to an existing presence document, but creation of a new
one.
yes, it is considered a new presence document, which replaces an old one
if any. same as if a single ua crashes and is restarted: it will issue
a publish without etag.
Perhaps the best would be to me able to control this
matching, to force
or not when etag is present. From code point of view, even there is no
record in PUA matching the etag, the publish is sent and added in PUA
table only in case of 200ok. So, if there is no etag match on server
side, then the return code should be 412 (iirc atm), so no new record
added in pua.
yes, error code should be returned if an etag is present in publish,
which does not match what presence server expects.
All seemed to be fine, anyhow, ultimately we can leave
the patch for 3.3
if you don't need it and nobody else wants it for the moment -- I can
upload it on tracker for availability.
if others don't have other opinions, lets put the patch on hold.
-- juha
4823
days inactive
4837
days old
13 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Juha Heinanen