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

[Francis Joanis]

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

Le 2011-09-08 à 14:45, Aron Rosenberg <arosenberg at logitech.com> a écrit :

> 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 at sipspectrum.com> 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 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110908/43891d0a/attachment.htm>