[OpenSIPS-Users] Question on route types and replies

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Hi Daren,

I do not remember to have any changes between 2.3 and 3.0 when comes to 
the sl_send_reply() usage - maybe you can be more explicit on the 
differences you see between the versions.

Now, one using handling the failure of `t_relay()` - if the function has 
some internal failure in sending out the request, it will automatically 
send back a negative reply and return success to script. The failure 
indication is returned to the script ONLY if the both sending the 
request AND the negative reply ops failed.
The sending of the negative reply is done in stateful mode, so this is 
the explanation of sl_reply_error() you see in examples - it will try to 
report back a reply in a stateless mode (in a lighter way, with a higher 
probability of success than the stateful attempt).
Why not doing this in failure route? as in failure route you are already 
in stateful mode, so there are almost 0 chances to get a failure 
indication from t_relay().

As a note, see the 0x02 flag for t_relay() - 
https://opensips.org/html/docs/modules/3.0.x/tm.html#func_t_relay

Best Regards,

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu

OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
   https://www.opensips-solutions.com
OpenSIPS Summit, Amsterdam, May 2020
   https://www.opensips.org/events/Summit-2020Amsterdam/
OpenSIPS Bootcamp, Miami, March 2020
   https://opensips.org/training/OpenSIPS_Bootcamp_2020/

On 12/15/19 5:11 PM, Daren FERREIRA wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I’ve been using my configuration script for a while without problems on 2.3.x releases, but, with 3.0.x some errors are coming.
> Syntax changes are not a problem, as fortunately changes are well documented on the wikis :)
>
> My problem is relative to replies (sl_send_reply and sl_reply_error) and the places where we’re allowed to use them.
> For sl_send_reply, send_reply alternative has solved my problem, but that’s not as easy for sl_reply_error.
>
> In every documentation, examples or forums i read, we use to do
>
>          if (!t_relay()) {
>                  sl_reply_error();
>          }
>
> In order to send an error in case of any problem with t_relay.
>
> But sl_reply_error is forbidden in failure routes, so, should we consider there will never have any problems with t_relay in failure routes?
>
> In my case i use dispatcher, and, in case of failure, i try to find another destination, and relay messages to it, until the call succeed…
> If the first try fails, it triggers a failure route where i’m no more able to send an error if the t_relay fails…
>
> So is it safe not to check anymore the t_relay return on failure routes?
> If not, is there any alternatives? I think about using send_reply instead of sl_reply_error, but with what arguments?  $err.rcode and $err.rreason ?
>
> Thank you for your help and comments.
>
> Regards
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.opensips.org
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users