Nikos, you disappoint me. report_versions() is linked in from the gwlib libraries with the values that it was compiled with. Try it, and you will see.
== Rene -----Original Message----- From: Nikos Balkanas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: zondag 11 juli 2010 17:33 To: Rene Kluwen; 'Victor Luchitz'; [email protected] Subject: Re: smppbox code questions Nope, that would defeat the whole puprose. Add it to your code, just before calling report_versions() BR, Nikos ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rene Kluwen" <[email protected]> To: "'Nikos Balkanas'" <[email protected]>; "'Victor Luchitz'" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 4:50 PM Subject: RE: smppbox code questions >I haven't tried. > But it will only work if I recompile gwlib after the new #define's. > > == Rene > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nikos Balkanas [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: zondag 11 juli 2010 9:46 > To: Rene Kluwen; 'Victor Luchitz'; [email protected] > Subject: Re: smppbox code questions > > Hi, > > Have you tried: > > #undef GW_NAME > #undef GW_VERSION > > #define GW_VERSION ... > #define GW_NAME ... > > and then call report_versions? > > BR, > Nikos > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rene Kluwen" <[email protected]> > To: "'Victor Luchitz'" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 11:48 PM > Subject: RE: smppbox code questions > > > That is a gwlib quirk. The function report_versions() has the Kannel > version > > hard coded in it. > Sqlbox has the same problem. > > Maybe we need to send in a patch for gwlib/utils.c. > > == Rene > > -----Original Message----- > From: Victor Luchitz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: zaterdag 10 juli 2010 22:17 > To: [email protected]; Rene Kluwen > Subject: Re: smppbox code questions > > Yeah, I made similar changes locally with the same result: at startup, > smppbox prints the following message: > [91108] [0] DEBUG: Kannel smppbox version `svn-r4833M'. > which is kannel's svn revision number, not that of smppbox. > > 2010/7/10 Rene Kluwen <[email protected]>: >> I did an attempt to include the svn version numbers. >> But so far no luck. I did check things in, in case you want to have a >> look > >> at it. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Victor Luchitz [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: zaterdag 10 juli 2010 18:27 >> To: Rene Kluwen >> Subject: Re: smppbox code questions >> >> Ok, then. On a side note, the configure.in file needs to be updated to >> reflect the cvs -> svn change, currently the configure script still >> tries to fetch the version number from CVS/Entries file and fails at >> doing so. I am by no means an M4/autotools expert, guess some >> copy&paste job could be done using the main kannel configure.in.. >> >> 2010/7/10 Rene Kluwen <[email protected]>: >>> I decided to change the sources with longer variables, so things are >>> consistent with smsbox. >>> cfg.diff has also been committed. >>> >>> == Rene >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Victor Luchitz [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: zaterdag 10 juli 2010 15:53 >>> To: [email protected]; Rene Kluwen >>> Subject: Re: smppbox code questions >>> >>> Oh, my original patch was missing the smppbox-cfg.def part (in >>> attachment) so currently you can't specify any of the new vars, >>> otherwise > >>> smppbox doesn't start. >>> One thing I noticed is that you committed my patch with vars using >>> shorter names: src-addr-npi, etc, while the svn doc uses longer names >>> for > >>> them: source-addr-npi, dest-addr-npi and so on. Either the source code >>> needs correction to match the documentation or later is messed up >>> :) >>> >>> 2010/7/10 Rene Kluwen <[email protected]>: >>>> Right away I also checked in your ton/npi patch. >>>> >>>> == Rene >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Victor Luchitz [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: vrijdag 9 juli 2010 23:19 >>>> To: Rene Kluwen >>>> Subject: Re: smppbox code questions >>>> >>>> Yeah, I was thinking about this "hack" as well, but it's going to >>>> create more problems than it solves. Btw, why does smppbox use >>>> system-type as boxc_id instead of ESME's login name? That forces >>>> EMSE's to have distinct system-type values, while almost all SMSC'es >>>> I've seen so far allow connections with empty system-type string, for >>>> example. >>>> >>>> 2010/7/10 Rene Kluwen <[email protected]>: >>>>> Heh... I think the way it works now is best for the average user. >>>>> But I am sure you are competent enough to change it to your own needs. >>>>> One "hack" that you can make is make the system-type of the client the >>>>> same as your smsc-id in your kannel.conf. >>>>> This is of course not recommended for most persons, but it might work >>>>> for you. >>>>> >>>>> == Rene >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Victor Luchitz [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>> Sent: vrijdag 9 juli 2010 22:39 >>>>> To: Rene Kluwen >>>>> Subject: Re: smppbox code questions >>>>> >>>>> I have a pretty good idea how it works, it's just that the way it >>>>> works doesn't suit my needs ;) >>>>> >>>>> 2010/7/9 Rene Kluwen <[email protected]>: >>>>>> Surely this is relevant. >>>>>> >>>>>> Smppbox is not interested in bearerbox generated dlr's. It just needs >>>>>> to "dlr_find" the dlr's that it added itself via dlr_add. >>>>>> Bearerbox takes care of its own dlr's. Smppbox also takes care of its >>>>>> own dlr's. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you should re-read the code again to see how it works. >>>>>> >>>>>> == Rene >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Victor Luchitz [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>> Sent: vrijdag 9 juli 2010 15:35 >>>>>> To: [email protected]; Rene Kluwen >>>>>> Subject: Re: smppbox code questions >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, but how is this relevant? I mean, there are two possibilities >>>>>> to make smppbox be aware of bearerbox-generated DLRs: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) use boxc_id as smsc-id in dlr_add in bearerbox and then pass the >>>>>> report_mo message to smppbox without issuing dlr_find in bearerbox >>>>>> 2) use "proper"/parent smsc-id in smppbox >>>>>> >>>>>> The whole issue arises from the need to pass SMSC-related DLR's to >>>>>> smppbox without the later issuing any DLR's itself. For example, a >>>>>> MT message may fail to be delivered due to insufficient funds on >>>>>> user's account. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2010/7/9 Rene Kluwen <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> If bearerbox sends a report_mo, then it should include a status (dlr >>>>>>> type) as well. >>>>>>> Or am I wrong? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> == Rene >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Victor Luchitz [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>>> Sent: vrijdag 9 juli 2010 14:24 >>>>>>> To: [email protected]; Rene Kluwen >>>>>>> Subject: Re: smppbox code questions >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unfortunately there's currently no way to add a SMSC_SUCCESS or >>>>>>> SMSC_FAIL DLR in smppbox so I have/need to do that in bearerbox. >>>>>>> But oh, well, I'll just go with boxc_id as smsc-id and live with >>>>>>> this fact. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2010/7/9 Rene Kluwen <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>> But bearerbox inserts it's own dlr's. As does smppbox. >>>>>>>> So bearerbox will find their dlr's. And smppbox will do also. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> == Rene >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Victor Luchitz [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>>>> Sent: vrijdag 9 juli 2010 13:55 >>>>>>>> To: Rene Kluwen >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: smppbox code questions >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, this is going against the logic in bearerbox. For example, >>>>>>>> if you pass a DLR via standard Kannel HTTP protocol, bearerbox >>>>>>>> will try to find a matching DLR using its own smsc-id, upon >>>>>>>> failing to do, it won't pass the DLR to smppbox either. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2010/7/9 Rene Kluwen <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>>> The first parameter (smsc_id) is to determine "who's" dlr it is to >>>>>>>>> begin with. So in short: To which smsc it belongs. >>>>>>>>> Because smppbox does things the other way around, it passes the >>>>>>>>> boxc_id variable. So if two boxes happen to have the same "ts" >>>>>>>>> (which can in theory happen) the value is used to distinguish to >>>>>>>>> which box_id it belongs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> == Rene >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: Victor Luchitz [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>>>>> Sent: vrijdag 9 juli 2010 11:12 >>>>>>>>> To: [email protected]; Rene Kluwen >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: smppbox code questions >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On a side note, why does smppbox use boxc_id as the first >>>>>>>>> parameter passed to dlr_add and dlr_find? Both functions take >>>>>>>>> smsc_id as the first argument and boxc_id value is obtained from >>>>>>>>> the sms struct. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2010/7/8 Rene Kluwen <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>>>> Done. >>>>>>>>>> Current revision is 17. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Victor Luchitz >>>>>>>>>> Sent: donderdag 8 juli 2010 15:06 >>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: smppbox code questions >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yeah, you committed the proposed change to boxc->boxc_id in >>>>>>>>>> revision 15. What I'm asking about is the suggestion and patch I >>>>>>>>>> posted here: >>>>>>>>>> http://www.kannel.org/pipermail/devel/2010-July/003653.html >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2010/7/8 Rene Kluwen <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>>>>> It's already in the code. >>>>>>>>>>> Current revision is 16. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> == Rene >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Victor Luchitz >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: donderdag 8 juli 2010 7:52 >>>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: smppbox code questions >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Any hope this will be reviewed and committed? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm also working on a patch that adds TLV support to smppbox >>>>>>>>>>> but I'd like to get this one included first. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2010/7/6 Victor Luchitz <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's working fine now. Noticed there's another memleak >>>>>>>>>>>> though: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> another octstr_destroy(msgid); call is needed right after the: >>>>>>>>>>>> /* we could not find a corresponding dlr; nothing to send */ >>>>>>>>>>>> line. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm also attaching another patch which allows transmission of >>>>>>>>>>>> custom error codes in DLR's in the same manner as the message >>>>>>>>>>>> text bit. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2010/7/6 Rene Kluwen <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have no way of testing this here. But since either way >>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot > >>>>>>>>>>>>> harm I changed it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Current smppbox revision is now 15. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please check out and see if this fixes your problem? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> == Rene >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Victor Luchitz >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: dinsdag 6 juli 2010 14:53 >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: smppbox code questions >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) I think this assumption is incorrect. I have the routing >>>>>>>>>>>>> set up this way in bearerbox: >>>>>>>>>>>>> group = smsbox-route >>>>>>>>>>>>> smsbox-id = vma >>>>>>>>>>>>> smsc-id = HTTP >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So all messages on the 'HTTP' smsc get routed to smppbox. >>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the custom HTTP protocol in the above layer does not >>>>>>>>>>>>> use dlr_find to route messages to a specific box for two >>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a) wrong smsc-id is used in the query (bearerbox doesn't know >>>>>>>>>>>>> that smppbox overrides the smsc id with system-type) so >>>>>>>>>>>>> dlr_find always fails >>>>>>>>>>>>> b) dlr_find removes DLR from the table and then subsequently >>>>>>>>>>>>> readds it, which is rather stressful on the DB for no sane >>>>>>>>>>>>> reason >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What it does instead is simply setting the sms_type to >>>>>>>>>>>>> report_mo, leaving box_id empty as in regular MO messages. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2010/7/6 Rene Kluwen <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To start with the last thing: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) You are right. It should use the msgid's in the dlr_url >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the dlr instance. I changed it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> About 1): We assume msg->boxc_id and box->boxc_id are the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> same > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this case. Otherwise the message wouldn't have ended up >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> == Rene >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Victor >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Luchitz >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: maandag 5 juli 2010 20:36 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: smppbox code questions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a few questions for you regarding the handling of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DLR's by smppbox, which might also turn out to be bugs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In msg_to_pdu function there's a line which reads: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dlr = dlr_find(msg->sms.boxc_id, msgid, msg->sms.receiver, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dlrtype); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's incorrect because when a DLR is stored by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> smppbox in handle_pdu, the boxc_id it uses is that from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> smpp_logins file (system_type). That in turn may cause >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dlr_find to always fail. So in my opinion the correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dlr_find > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> call is this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dlr = dlr_find(box->boxc_id, msgid, msg->sms.receiver, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dlrtype); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) another thing I find not quite correct is the way smppbox >>>>>>>>>>>>>> splits message ids for concatenated DLR's. Basically, what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> smppbox does is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts = octstr_split(msg->sms.dlr_url, octstr_imm(";")); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> msgid = gwlist_extract_first(parts); ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then it loops through all elements of the 'parts' list and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> here is where the potential problem lies. smppbox assumes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that msgid for the concatenated DLR is always equal to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dlr_url > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is not always true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, I think it's never true for concatenated DLR's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored by the dlr_add call in handle_pdu. Also, for example, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 'msgid' and 'dlrurls' columns in the storage table can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have different maxiumum lengths, allowing truncation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> msgid. Here's my proposed fix - add the following bit of code >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to msg_to_pdu: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gwlist_destroy(parts, octstr_destroy_item); parts = >>>>>>>>>>>>>> octstr_split(dlr->sms.dlr_url, octstr_imm(";")); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gwlist_extract_first(parts); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> right above the following bit: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (gwlist_len(parts) > 0) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> while ((msgid2 = gwlist_extract_first(parts)) != NULL) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Victor Luchitz >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Victor Luchitz >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> Victor Luchitz >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Victor Luchitz >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>> Victor Luchitz >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> Victor Luchitz >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> Victor Luchitz >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> Victor Luchitz >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Victor Luchitz >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Victor Luchitz >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best regards, >>>> Victor Luchitz >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Victor Luchitz >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Victor Luchitz >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Victor Luchitz > > > > > > >
