Re: timestamps with emi2
Angel Fradejas wrote: > > Hi Stipe, > > Here you have the patch to date.c patch applied to cvs. I'm not sure on the impact, but since there we no objections from the others here we are. If something breaks please complain ASAP. Stipe [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Wapme Systems AG Münsterstr. 248 40470 Düsseldorf Tel: +49-211-74845-0 Fax: +49-211-74845-299 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de --- wapme.net - wherever you are
RE: timestamps with emi2
Hi Stipe, Here you have the patch to date.c Angel Fradejas. -Mensaje original- De: Stipe Tolj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Enviado el: martes 15 de enero de 2002 12:12 Para: Angel Fradejas CC: Kannel Developers Asunto: Re: timestamps with emi2 please send fixes in "diff -u" format attached as plain/text to the devel@ list. There are a couple of guys working (more or less) as active CVS commiters, see ChangeLog. If your patch doesn't get applied for some days ask someone personaly to commit it. When you have contributed some patches we will vote for giving you cvs write access, so you can perform it on your own. Stipe [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Wapme Systems AG Münsterstr. 248 40470 Düsseldorf Tel: +49-211-74845-0 Fax: +49-211-74845-299 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de --- wapme.net - wherever you are patch_date.diff Description: Binary data
Re: timestamps with emi2
please send fixes in "diff -u" format attached as plain/text to the devel@ list. There are a couple of guys working (more or less) as active CVS commiters, see ChangeLog. If your patch doesn't get applied for some days ask someone personaly to commit it. When you have contributed some patches we will vote for giving you cvs write access, so you can perform it on your own. Stipe [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Wapme Systems AG Münsterstr. 248 40470 Düsseldorf Tel: +49-211-74845-0 Fax: +49-211-74845-299 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de --- wapme.net - wherever you are
RE: timestamps with emi2
Hi Dima,
The code you pointed just states the opposite.
date_convert_universal is called when a valid emi2 timestamp is received.
And it uses an 1-12 index on a monthstart[12] array.
That's the problem. With the change I suggest I think we can fix
it.
My question again: what is the way to send fixes? Is
there anybody responsible to commit the CVS changes?
-Mensaje original-De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]En nombre de Dima
MilentievEnviado el: martes 15 de enero de 2002
9:12Para: Angel Fradejas; Kannel DevelopersAsunto: RE:
timestamps with emi2
Hi
all,
It seams we mix here
something.
We do parsing but if
only if we have problem we entry in branch and call date_convert_universal():
if (octstr_parse_long(&unitime.second, tempstr, 10, 10)
!= 12 ||
(octstr_delete(tempstr, 10,
2),
octstr_parse_long(&unitime.minute, tempstr, 8, 10)
!= 10) ||
(octstr_delete(tempstr, 8,
2),
octstr_parse_long(&unitime.hour, tempstr, 6, 10) !=
8) ||
(octstr_delete(tempstr, 6,
2),
octstr_parse_long(&unitime.year, tempstr, 4, 10) !=
6) ||
(octstr_delete(tempstr, 4,
2),
octstr_parse_long(&unitime.month, tempstr, 2, 10)
!= 4) ||
(octstr_delete(tempstr, 2,
2),
octstr_parse_long(&unitime.day, tempstr, 0, 10) !=
2)) {
error(0, "EMI
delivery time stamp looks malformed");
notime:
time(&msg->sms.time);
}
else {
unitime.year += 2000; /* Conversion function expects full
year */
msg->sms.time = date_convert_universal(&unitime);
}
And about date_convert_universal in date.c
May be I mistake but its look like we use that to get time in Unix
format in case of broken timestamp not reverse.
MO time stamp is correct all you need to format it as you
want.
Dima.
-Original
Message-From: Angel
Fradejas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 8:29
PMTo: Kannel
DevelopersSubject:
timestamps with emi2
I recently
began to work with a EMI2 smsc link, and have a question about the calculation
of the timestamps for the MO messges.
First, the code at
smsc_emi2.c splits day,month,year, and so on, and then it takes the
corresponding time_t by calling
date_convert_universal.
The question
is the timestamp I'm getting in the msg->sms.time variable is one month
ahead the real one. For example for the EMI2 timestamp "140102185129" I
get a timestamp representing "14/02/2002 18:51:29
UTC".
I think the
problem is in de date.c function
date_convert_universal:
line
81: date += monthstart[t->month] *
DAY;
Shouldn't it
be
line
81: date += monthstart[t->month-1] *
DAY;
?
Or am I doing
something wrong?
I need exacts
timestamps because we have to do accounting fo the sms
traffic.
Angel
Fradejas.
RE: timestamps with emi2
Hi all,
It seams we mix here something.
We do parsing but if only if we have
problem we entry in branch and call date_convert_universal():
if
(octstr_parse_long(&unitime.second,
tempstr, 10, 10) != 12 ||
(octstr_delete(tempstr, 10, 2),
octstr_parse_long(&unitime.minute, tempstr, 8, 10)
!= 10) ||
(octstr_delete(tempstr, 8, 2),
octstr_parse_long(&unitime.hour, tempstr, 6, 10) != 8)
||
(octstr_delete(tempstr, 6, 2),
octstr_parse_long(&unitime.year, tempstr, 4, 10) != 6)
||
(octstr_delete(tempstr, 4, 2),
octstr_parse_long(&unitime.month,
tempstr, 2, 10) != 4) ||
(octstr_delete(tempstr, 2, 2),
octstr_parse_long(&unitime.day, tempstr, 0, 10) != 2))
{
error(0, "EMI delivery time stamp
looks malformed");
notime:
time(&msg->sms.time);
}
else
{
unitime.year += 2000;
/* Conversion function expects full year */
msg->sms.time = date_convert_universal(&unitime);
}
And
about date_convert_universal in date.c
May
be I mistake but it’s look like we use that to get time in Unix format in
case of broken timestamp not reverse.
MO
time stamp is correct all you need to format it as you want.
Dima.
-Original Message-
From: Angel Fradejas
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002
8:29 PM
To: Kannel Developers
Subject: timestamps with emi2
I recently began to work
with a EMI2 smsc link, and have a question about the calculation of the
timestamps for the MO messges.
First, the code at
smsc_emi2.c splits day,month,year, and so on, and then it takes the
corresponding time_t by calling date_convert_universal.
The question is the
timestamp I'm getting in the msg->sms.time variable is one month ahead the
real one. For example for the EMI2 timestamp "140102185129" I
get a timestamp representing "14/02/2002 18:51:29 UTC".
I think the problem is in de
date.c function date_convert_universal:
line
81: date += monthstart[t->month] * DAY;
Shouldn't it be
line
81: date += monthstart[t->month-1] * DAY;
?
Or am I doing something
wrong?
I need exacts timestamps
because we have to do accounting fo the sms traffic.
Angel Fradejas.
RE: timestamps with emi2
>>I think the problem is in de date.c function date_convert_universal: >>line 81: date += monthstart[t->month] * DAY; >>Shouldn't it be >>line 81: date += monthstart[t->month-1] * DAY; >>? >>Or am I doing something wrong? >>I need exacts timestamps because we have to do accounting fo the sms traffic. >sounds reasonable assumption. the unix represenation of timestamps start with month 0-11. >Andreas Fink So who's the person responsible for date.c? Or should I send a patch? Angel Fradejas.
timestamps with emi2
I recently began to work with a EMI2 smsc link, and have a question about the calculation of the timestamps for the MO messges. First, the code at smsc_emi2.c splits day,month,year, and so on, and then it takes the corresponding time_t by calling date_convert_universal. The question is the timestamp I'm getting in the msg->sms.time variable is one month ahead the real one. For example for the EMI2 timestamp "140102185129" I get a timestamp representing "14/02/2002 18:51:29 UTC". I think the problem is in de date.c function date_convert_universal: line 81: date += monthstart[t->month] * DAY; Shouldn't it be line 81: date += monthstart[t->month-1] * DAY; ? Or am I doing something wrong? I need exacts timestamps because we have to do accounting fo the sms traffic. Angel Fradejas.
