Hi Ben, sorry you are right. That was 0x10 and is in my local copy :) Stipe made commit that changed it: 1.21 (stolj 07-Jan-07): #define DLR_SMSC_FAIL 0x16
Ok, I will correct it in cvs and commit. Thanks for pointing it! Ben Suffolk wrote: > I had assumed it was a binary bit mask :- > > 00001 Success > 00010 Fail > 00100 Buffered > 01000 SMSC Success > 10000 SMSC Failed > > Which would tie up with the value of decimal 31(11111) for > submission of all DLRs. > > However if the last value is in fact 0x16 (10110) then it would cause > problems with matching against specific bits like FAIL and BUFFERED. > > I really can't see it should be 0x16 myself. > > In fact just looking in the docs it states its a bit mask :- > > "The value is a bit mask composed of: 1: Delivered to phone, 2: Non- > Delivered to Phone, 4: Queued on SMSC, 8: Delivered to SMSC, 16: Non- > Delivered to SMSC" > > Regards > > Ben > > > On 3 Apr 2007, at 15:04, Alexander Malysh wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> it's pretty simple. If in documentation mentioned 16 then it's hex >> value and >> all values except 0x16 match with dec because below 0x10 dec and hex >> equal :) >> >> Ben Suffolk wrote: >> >>> Ok, >>> >>> Slightly confused then, the SMSC rejected my message at submission, >>> and so I should have got back a dlr_mask value of 16 (dec) in the DLR >>> according to the documentation, but I got back 22 (dec). Maybe I >>> jumped to the wrong conclusion seeing the DLR_SMSC_FAIL set to 0x16 >>> (22 dec) in the header file >>> >>> #define DLR_SUCCESS 0x01 >>> #define DLR_FAIL 0x02 >>> #define DLR_BUFFERED 0x04 >>> #define DLR_SMSC_SUCCESS 0x08 >>> #define DLR_SMSC_FAIL 0x16 >>> >>> But does that not strike you as a bit odd though that they all match >>> the documentation with the exception of DLR_SMSC_FAIL, and looking at >>> them if you were reading them as dec numbers not hex they would >>> match. It really does look like a simple typo to me. >>> >>> Anyway, if you figure out why I got 22 instead of 16 please let me >>> know. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Ben >>> >>> On 3 Apr 2007, at 14:35, Alexander Malysh wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ben, >>>> >>>> your patch is not correct. You will receive SMSC_FAIL or DLR_FAIL >>>> depending >>>> on the dlr_mask you used. If you set dlr_mask to request SMSC_FAIL >>>> then you >>>> will receive it if only DLR_FAIL requested then DLR_FAIL will be >>>> set. >>>> >>>> Ben Suffolk wrote: >>>> >>>>> Just noticed that when the SMSC rejects a message at submission the >>>>> dlr was set to 22 (0x16) not 16 (0x10). Just a bad define in the >>>>> header file. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Ben >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Thanks, >>>> Alex >>>> >>>> >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> Alex >> >> -- Thanks, Alex
