Closed #2449.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/2449#event-4015650843___
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
sr-dev@l
@cleung-tpn - thanks for testing and feedback! Commit is now backported to
branch 5.4.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/2449#issuecomment-730350894__
@miconda, it works perfectly!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/2449#issuecomment-730097611___
Kamailio (SER) - Development
Not using t_load_contacts() was not giving me a chance earlier to investigate
deeply, but finally I got some time and I went on troubleshooting by diff-ing
the code and behaviour between the versions and came up with the commit
referenced above.
The result of debug messages now looks like in t
@henningw, pulled the latest v5.4.2 and reverted 1399714 and tried again. The
original behavior is restored.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/2449#issuecomment-7258
>
>
> @marcocapetta - based on history, the commit
> [1399714](https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/1399714fbba63732f94eb8034dabb1e565ca832a)
> seems to be the only one with major changes in this code between 5.3 and
> 5.4. Can you check if it broke the existing behaviour?
@marcocapett
@cleung-tpn Have you tried to see if reverting the commit 1399714 restore the
previous behaviour for you?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/2449#issuecomment-72457443
Checking in to see if a solution is in the works. Thanks.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/2449#issuecomment-707209809___
I can confirm there is a change in behaviour between 5.3 and 5.4 (I tested with
master, but it is the same code).
I made some small changes to the config to have more debug messages and be able
to test with OPTIONS sent by sipsak -- the full config is next:
```
### Global Parameters ##
Thanks @miconda, here you go.
```
### Global Parameters #
debug = 2
log_stderror = no
log_facility = LOG_LOCAL6
listen = eth0
### Modules Section
# mpath="/usr/lib64/kamailio/modules/"
loadmodule "kex.so"
loadmodule "corex.so"
loadmodule "tm.so"
loadmodule "tmx.so"
loadm
@cleung-tpn can you provide a minimal kamailio.cfg reproducing the issue? You
already provided snippets in comments, but somehow I got lost in use of drop or
revert_uri() in different places vs what @linuxmaniac tried. When I get some
time I can test it with such config and see if I can spot som
@henningw That's not what I said. The problem is reproducible if the branches
are added using append_branch.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/2449#issuecomment-6921
@cleung-tpn so you could not reproduce it and this issue can be closed?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/2449#issuecomment-691006759__
So I applied Victor's `route[TEST]` at the beginning of my config and added the
usrloc entries. The problem with branches could not be reproduced. Instead of
`drop` at the end of `route[TEST]`, I `revert_uri()` so I could continue with
my `append_branch` portion. Same result. Here's the log
Hi,
El mié., 26 ago. 2020 20:25, Cindy Leung
escribió:
> Is it possible that the branches are handled differently when they're
> added by append_branch()?
>
> append_branch("sip:1...@gateway1.carrierb.com;transport=tcp", "0.3");
> append_branch("sip:1...@gateway2.carrierb.com;tra
Is it possible that the branches are handled differently when they're added by
`append_branch()`?
```
append_branch("sip:1...@gateway1.carrierb.com;transport=tcp", "0.3");
append_branch("sip:1...@gateway2.carrierb.com;transport=tcp", "0.2");
append_branch("sip:1...
I see no changes in behavior.
My investigation details:
```
root@10f12270eb57:/etc/kamailio# diff -uN kamailio.cfg.orig kamailio.cfg
--- kamailio.cfg.orig 2020-08-26 07:10:34.436758338 +
+++ kamailio.cfg2020-08-26 07:40:20.60519 +
@@ -320,6 +320,8 @@
modparam("tm", "fr_time
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
> Also, maybe @juha-h can comment on this issue, being the initial
> developer of these functions, to see what is the expected behaviour
> and if there is an unwanted change in the last version.
Version of tm README before mode param was added tells what the expec
Also, maybe @juha-h can comment on this issue, being the initial developer of
these functions, to see what is the expected behaviour and if there is an
unwanted change in the last version.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view
19 matches
Mail list logo
