Re: [sr-dev] ul.add params

Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > It proved that the issue was in the rpc module implementation related to > handling of the optional specifier '*' when there were no more params > available. I pushed some patches to both jsonrpcs and xmlrpc, but I > could test only with jsonrpcs. Maybe you can

Re: [sr-dev] ul.add params

On 18.10.17 14:09, Juha Heinanen wrote: > Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > >> I will look at it. If you can the log messages with debug=3 in the config >> for processing the command, I will try to spot it quicly. Otherwise likely >> to take 1-2 days until I get back to office and can reproduce

[sr-dev] git:master:cae9b565: sipdump: details of running processes written in meta file

Module: kamailio Branch: master Commit: cae9b5655b1779e4f968f9ab16a5bae41151e4a4 URL: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/cae9b5655b1779e4f968f9ab16a5bae41151e4a4 Author: Daniel-Constantin Mierla Committer: Daniel-Constantin Mierla Date:

[sr-dev] git:master:87d71619: jsonrpcs: fix handling the optional param spec on no more params

Module: kamailio Branch: master Commit: 87d71619e7896d3d333bb6c15d4c00616add71a6 URL: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/87d71619e7896d3d333bb6c15d4c00616add71a6 Author: Daniel-Constantin Mierla Committer: Daniel-Constantin Mierla Date:

[sr-dev] git:master:7ffa6a4f: usrloc: log message when rpc ul.add does not get proper params

Module: kamailio Branch: master Commit: 7ffa6a4fd2b4daf9edf0f46d5be0bb9cc06e00d7 URL: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/7ffa6a4fd2b4daf9edf0f46d5be0bb9cc06e00d7 Author: Daniel-Constantin Mierla Committer: Daniel-Constantin Mierla Date:

Re: [sr-dev] ul.add params

Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > I will look at it. If you can the log messages with debug=3 in the config > for processing the command, I will try to spot it quicly. Otherwise likely > to take 1-2 days until I get back to office and can reproduce myself. I have been busy, but tries by adding

Re: [sr-dev] ul.add params

Even in the 5.0 the path was supposed to be 0 if not wanted to be set. It was the inspiration I had for the other optional parameters I added. I will look at it. If you can the log messages with debug=3 in the config for processing the command, I will try to spot it quicly. Otherwise likely to

Re: [sr-dev] ul.add params

Juha Heinanen writes: > Perhaps the error is due to this change: > > in 5.0: >path value of the contact > > in 5.1: > path value with the Path vector (use '0' or '.' if it should not be set) > > In my xmlrpc command path param has empty string value: > > ... > > . > > ...

Re: [sr-dev] ul.add params

Juha Heinanen writes: > > if you don't need to provide any of those parameters, then it should just > > work by not having them in the command. Perhaps the error is due to this change: in 5.0: path value of the contact in 5.1: path value with the Path vector (use '0' or '.' if it should

Re: [sr-dev] ul.add params

Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > if you don't need to provide any of those parameters, then it should just > work by not having them in the command. OK, but it doesn't as the error message told. I should not have made any changes to that part of code from 5.0 to 5.1, but can recheck. -- Juha

Re: [sr-dev] ul.add params

Hello, if you don't need to provide any of those parameters, then it should just work by not having them in the command. But, for example, if you want to provide socket only, which is after the received as parameter order, then you must provide received parameter as well and use . or 0 to

[sr-dev] ul.add params

I noticed that my ul.add command that works OK in 5.0 doesn't anymore work in 5.1. I get back to the xmlrpc query: faultString Not enough parameters or wrong format I then went and compared ul.add in 5.0 and 5.1 and noticed that in 5.1 it has added two optional params: received

Re: [sr-dev] [kamailio/kamailio] topos and dialog timeout conflict (#1216)

Interestingly I cannot reproduce the problem with those added lines. If I comment them out, I can still reproduce the problem. Will experiment a little more but thought I'd provide that clue. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or