Hi,
Thanks for the suggestion.
The reason why I was refusing the implied subscription was because of a local state of my application. For example, if a REFER would have come in while the system was in an invalid state. If a REFER nosub came in while the system is in the same state, it would be rejected using rejectReferNoSub.
Regard, Francis The incorrect assert aside, instead of refusing the NOTIFY, why don't you create your REFER with nosub so the server doesn't have to create the NOTIFY traffic in the first place.
Aron Rosenberg Sr. Director, Engineering, LifeSize, a division of Logitech
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Scott Godin <sgodin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Actually I think a break is missing from the previous case statement. I'll commit a fix. Let me know if you still see the issue or not.
Thanks! Scott
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Francis Joanis <francis.joanis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently hitting an assertion when refusing a REFER's implied
subscription with a 503. The assertion is shown below (between
$$$$$$$$$$$$$):
bool
ServerSubscription::shouldDestroyAfterSendingFailure(const SipMessage& msg)
{
int code = msg.header(h_StatusLine).statusCode();
switch(mSubDlgState)
{
case SubDlgInitial:
return true;
case SubDlgTerminating: //terminated state not using in ServerSubscription
assert(0);
return true;
case SubDlgEstablished:
{
if (code == 405)
{
return true;
}
switch (Helper::determineFailureMessageEffect(*mLastResponse))
{
case Helper::TransactionTermination:
case Helper::RetryAfter:
break;
case Helper::OptionalRetryAfter:
case Helper::ApplicationDependant:
// .bwc. Uh, no. ApplicationDependent should imply that the
// app-writer has decided what to do. We don't decide here. And
// OptionalRetryAfter certainly doesn't mean we should tear the
// Usage down.
// throw UsageUseException("Not a reasonable code to
reject a SUBSCIRBE(refresh) inside a dialog.",
// __FILE__, __LINE__);
break;
case Helper::DialogTermination: //?dcm? -- throw or destroy this?
case Helper::UsageTermination:
return true;
}
}
default: // !jf!
$$$$$$$$$$$$$ assert(0); $$$$$$$$$$$$$
break;
}
return false;
}
I'm no expert at this part of the code (I guess, yet ;) ), but it
looks like either this assert is invalid or some "return false"
statements are missing in the nested switch statement.
I'm thinking the assert should be removed but I'd like to get your
opinions first.
P.S. The diff can be seen here:
https://svn.resiprocate.org/viewsvn/resiprocate/main/resip/dum/ServerSubscription.cxx?r1=8919&r2=8925
Thanks,
Francis
_______________________________________________
resiprocate-devel mailing list
resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
_______________________________________________
resiprocate-devel mailing list
resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
|