[OpenSIPS-Users] sip_msg_validate()

[Nick Altmann]

The patch adding text pvar in case of negative result.

https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=232389&atid=1086412

--
Nick


2013/2/26 Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <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 Developerhttp://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>
>
>>  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 Developerhttp://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>
>>
>>>  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 Developerhttp://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 listUsers at lists.opensips.orghttp://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130226/3cc0cd99/attachment.htm>