11 May
2010
11 May
'10
3:59 p.m.
Hi,
Some interesting behavior with kam-3.0, which I haven't experienced with
<= 1.5:
Let's say I have two subscribers A and B registered. A has a
received-value in location table, B has it set to NULL.
If I call lookup() for A, $ru is set to the registered contact, and $du
is set to the received-value. When for example A is busy, I catch it
with a failure route and rewrite $ru to B. Calling lookup() again sets
my $ru to the contact of B, but since the received-value of B is NULL in
the DB, the $du is still pointing to the received-value of A, instead of
being set to null.
A quick-fix is to set $du to null before calling lookup(), but I'm
wondering if this is a bug or intended behavior?
Thanks,
Andreas
11 May
11 May
5:01 p.m.
Are you using newest 3.0 ? (git checkout)
I remember I once also had a problem with PVs which had stored old
values, but I can not remember naymore which PV it was.
regards
klaus
Am 11.05.2010 14:59, schrieb Andreas Granig:
Hi,
Some interesting behavior with kam-3.0, which I haven't experienced with
<= 1.5:
Let's say I have two subscribers A and B registered. A has a
received-value in location table, B has it set to NULL.
If I call lookup() for A, $ru is set to the registered contact, and $du
is set to the received-value. When for example A is busy, I catch it
with a failure route and rewrite $ru to B. Calling lookup() again sets
my $ru to the contact of B, but since the received-value of B is NULL in
the DB, the $du is still pointing to the received-value of A, instead of
being set to null.
A quick-fix is to set $du to null before calling lookup(), but I'm
wondering if this is a bug or intended behavior?
Thanks,
Andreas
_______________________________________________
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
5:02 p.m.
Hello,
On 5/11/10 2:59 PM, Andreas Granig wrote:
Hi,
Some interesting behavior with kam-3.0, which I haven't experienced
with <= 1.5:
Let's say I have two subscribers A and B registered. A has a
received-value in location table, B has it set to NULL.
If I call lookup() for A, $ru is set to the registered contact, and
$du is set to the received-value. When for example A is busy, I catch
it with a failure route and rewrite $ru to B. Calling lookup() again
sets my $ru to the contact of B, but since the received-value of B is
NULL in the DB, the $du is still pointing to the received-value of A,
instead of being set to null.
A quick-fix is to set $du to null before calling lookup(), but I'm
wondering if this is a bug or intended behavior?
at the first sight, looking into the code, should be the same in 1.5.
Are you sure is different? Practically the registrar/usrloc were touched
just a bit, nothing in the lookup or save functionality.
Looking in tm at execution of failure route, the dst_uri is recovered
from the winning branch. lookup updates the dst_uri only if it is a
value in location record.
Right now, I would say that lookup should reset any existing dst_uri if
received is null. Other opinions? Is anyone setting dst_uri before
lookup and needs it after?
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
* http://www.asipto.com/
* http://twitter.com/miconda
* http://www.linkedin.com/in/danielconstantinmierla
11:56 p.m.
2010/5/11 Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>om>:
Right now, I would say that lookup should reset any
existing dst_uri if
received is null.
IMHO it's the expected behaviour, if not it would be a chaos as we
should take care of manually reseting N pseudovariables (perhaps N+1
tomorrow).
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
12 May
12 May
12:05 a.m.
On 5/11/10 10:56 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2010/5/11 Daniel-Constantin
Mierla<miconda(a)gmail.com>om>:
in this case is only 1, dst uri, no matter tomorrow are N + M :-) .
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
* http://www.asipto.com/
* http://twitter.com/miconda
* http://www.linkedin.com/in/danielconstantinmierla
Right now, I would say that lookup should reset
any existing dst_uri if
received is null.
IMHO it's the expected behaviour, if not it would be a chaos as we
should take care of manually reseting N pseudovariables (perhaps N+1
tomorrow).
12:33 p.m.
at the first sight, looking into the code, should be
the same in 1.5.
Are you sure is different? Practically the registrar/usrloc were touched
just a bit, nothing in the lookup or save functionality.
Hmmm... You're right, I'm not sure about 1.5, since I only used this
version for load-balancing.
At least, I can confirm it was working fine with 1.3. However, it's
definitely reproducable with 3.0, since I only have this one on my lab
servers at the moment.
You need any additional information or something to track it down?
Andreas
13 May
13 May
12:30 p.m.
On 5/12/10 11:33 AM, Andreas Granig wrote:
no, I found it in the code. I am going to commit on master soon.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
* http://www.asipto.com/
* http://twitter.com/miconda
* http://www.linkedin.com/in/danielconstantinmierla
at the first
sight, looking into the code, should be the same in 1.5.
Are you sure is different? Practically the registrar/usrloc were touched
just a bit, nothing in the lookup or save functionality.
Hmmm... You're right, I'm not sure about 1.5, since I only used this
version for load-balancing.
At least, I can confirm it was working fine with 1.3. However, it's
definitely reproducable with 3.0, since I only have this one on my lab
servers at the moment.
You need any additional information or something to track it down?
12:54 p.m.
On 5/13/10 11:30 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
On 5/12/10 11:33 AM, Andreas Granig wrote:
no, I found it in the code. I am going to commit on master soon.
commit done:
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/2010-May/007530.html
Practically is one line of code. I had not time to do some testing,
should be no side effects, though. I will analyze a bit to see if has
other impacts and then backport to 3.0.x. If you do some tests with
3.0.x meanwhile, just let me know the results.
Thanks,
Daniel
at the
first sight, looking into the code, should be the same in 1.5.
Are you sure is different? Practically the registrar/usrloc were
touched
just a bit, nothing in the lookup or save functionality.
Hmmm... You're right, I'm not sure about 1.5, since I only used this
version for load-balancing.
At least, I can confirm it was working fine with 1.3. However, it's
definitely reproducable with 3.0, since I only have this one on my
lab servers at the moment.
You need any additional information or something to track it down?
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
* http://www.asipto.com/
* http://twitter.com/miconda
* http://www.linkedin.com/in/danielconstantinmierla
5310
days inactive
5312
days old
8 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Andreas Granig -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
Klaus Darilion