[reSIProcate] Question about an assert(0) that was added in rev 8925 of ServerSubscription.cxx

[Scott Godin]

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 at gmail.com>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 at resiprocate.org
> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.resiprocate.org/pipermail/resiprocate-devel/attachments/20110908/5397e386/attachment.htm>