On Nov 12, 2009 at 07:42, Juha Heinanen <[email protected]> wrote:
> just when i mentioned in previous email that i don't currently have any
> known problems with sr_3.0, a new one hit me.
> 
> script calls next_gw(), which results in errors:
> 
> Nov 12 07:35:24 localhost /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5495]: INFO: lcr 
> [lcr_mod.c:2062]: appending branch <sip:[email protected]:5060>
> Nov 12 07:35:24 localhost /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5495]: : <core> [action.c:344]: 
> BUG: do_action: bad append_branch_t 1

The parameter for the script append branch is now a str and not a
null-terminated string.
I've changed that recently (394e061f) when I've made the script
append_branch more compatible with the k version (force socket a.s.o.).

I haven't thought that someone might use do_action() w/ APPEND_BRANCH_T
 instead of directly using append_branch().

> Nov 12 07:35:24 localhost /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5495]: ERROR: <core> 
> [action.c:1251]: run action error at: :0
> Nov 12 07:35:24 localhost /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5495]: ERROR: lcr 
> [lcr_mod.c:2065]: do_action failed with return value <-5>
> 
> the piece of code where the errors comes is this:
> 
>       uri_str.s = r_uri;
>       uri_str.len = r_uri_len;
>       memset(&act, '\0', sizeof(act));
>       act.type = APPEND_BRANCH_T;
>       act.val[0].type = STRING_ST;
                      ^^^^^^^^^^ replace with STR_ST.
                      (for the record, I see you switched to
                      append_branch()).
>       act.val[0].u.str = uri_str;
>       act.val[1].type = NUMBER_ST;
>       act.val[1].u.number = 0;
>       init_run_actions_ctx(&ra_ctx);
>       LM_INFO("appending branch <%.*s>\n", uri_str.len, uri_str.s);
>       rval = do_action(&ra_ctx, &act, _m);
>       if (rval != 1) {
>           LM_ERR("do_action failed with return value <%d>\n", rval);
>           return -1;
>       }
>     }
> 
> i added the LM_INFO in order to verify validity of the uri and it looks
> ok to me.
> 
> is this some new bug or what?  i haven't seen it earlier although i have
> been running the same tests.

Yes, it's a recent change.


Andrei

_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev

Reply via email to