[OpenSIPS-Users] sip_msg_validate()

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Hi Nick,

Thank you for the patch - once we are over the today release for stable 
1.9.0, we will start working on the patches.

Best regards,

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
http://www.opensips-solutions.com


On 02/26/2013 08:26 PM, Nick Altmann wrote:
> The patch adding text pvar in case of negative result.
>
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=232389&atid=1086412 
> <https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=232389&atid=1086412>
>
> --
> Nick
>
>
> 2013/2/26 Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bogdan at opensips.org 
> <mailto:bogdan at opensips.org>>
>
>     I would suggest to spit -1 even more... or we can make the
>     function to populate a kind of strerror :) - to return in a pvar
>     the description of the failure....just exploring here :)
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>     OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
>     http://www.opensips-solutions.com
>
>
>     On 02/26/2013 05:16 PM, Nick Altmann wrote:
>>     Now we have:
>>
>>        *
>>
>>           /1/ - the message is RFC3261 compliant and has been
>>           successfully validated.
>>
>>        *
>>
>>           /-1/ - the message is not RFC3261 compliant.
>>
>>        *
>>
>>           /-2/ - signals a parsing error.
>>
>>        *
>>
>>           /-3/ - invalid SDP body.
>>
>>        *
>>
>>           /-4/ - invalid headers body.
>>
>>        *
>>
>>           /-5/ - invalid R-URI.
>>
>>        *
>>
>>           /-6/ - invalid R-URI domain.
>>
>>        *
>>
>>           /-255/ - undefined errors.
>>
>>     "-1" can be:
>>     - message doesn't have callid
>>     - message doesn't have Content Length header for proto %d
>>     - PATH header supported only for REGISTERs
>>     - Cseq not parsed properly
>>     - invalid body - content length %ld different then actual body %d
>>
>>     Maybe increase log level for "-1" only?
>>     But now I think I just can increase debug level before
>>     sip_msg_validate() and lower it after. :-)
>>
>>     --
>>     Nick
>>
>>
>>     2013/2/26 Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bogdan at opensips.org
>>     <mailto:bogdan at opensips.org>>
>>
>>         In this case, it means the function has to report something
>>         more than -1....like: -1 no MF hdr, -2 missing body, -3
>>         missing TO, etc...
>>
>>         Regards,
>>
>>         Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>>         OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
>>         http://www.opensips-solutions.com
>>
>>
>>         On 02/26/2013 03:32 PM, Nick Altmann wrote:
>>>         Bogdan,
>>>
>>>         I'm second time deal with problem when I receive "-1" from
>>>         script and to understand what is not okay I should compare
>>>         message with source code. :-)
>>>         Of course I receive and interpret this codes, but "-1" is
>>>         not fully informative sometimes. Especially when sdp length
>>>         is not okay. :-)
>>>
>>>         --
>>>         Nick
>>>
>>>
>>>         2013/2/26 Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bogdan at opensips.org
>>>         <mailto:bogdan at opensips.org>>
>>>
>>>             Hi Nick,
>>>
>>>             Such a change may induce a self-spaming effect on your
>>>             logs :). I would rather interpret the return code from
>>>             script and let the script writer the decision if he
>>>             wants to log that or not...(depending on the failed
>>>             check, maybe if local subscriber or not, etc).
>>>
>>>             At least these are my 2 cents on the matter :)
>>>
>>>             Regards,
>>>
>>>             Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>>>             OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
>>>             http://www.opensips-solutions.com
>>>
>>>
>>>             On 02/26/2013 01:01 PM, Nick Altmann wrote:
>>>>             Hello!
>>>>
>>>>             What about to change DBG messages in sip_msg_validate()
>>>>             to ERR or INFO? It will help to understand the reason
>>>>             of reject. Especially for -1 return (the message is not
>>>>             RFC3261 compliant).
>>>>
>>>>             --
>>>>             Nick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>             Users mailing list
>>>>             Users at lists.opensips.org  <mailto:Users at lists.opensips.org>
>>>>             http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130227/3601cd9a/attachment.htm>