Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Fixed in svn r97.
The bug got introduced in r91 when I added propagation of 180/183 events to web
client, but forgot to re-assign self.outgoing to new task/generator of
continueConnect instead of old connect. So doing self.outgoing.close() was not
having any effect because the old task/generator was already closed.
Original comment by kundan10
on 18 Aug 2011 at 7:11
Hi Kundan!
I checked r97, but, siprtmp_gevent is not fixeed there.
Please fix gevent version too to have call cancellation working completely...
Original comment by eag...@gmail.com
on 19 Aug 2011 at 12:55
Fixed gevent version in svn r98. This was a different issue though. Thanks for
pointing out...
Original comment by kundan10
on 19 Aug 2011 at 8:43
Hi Kundan!
The problem still exists in siprtmp.py (not siprtmp_gevent.py):
When i make a call with INVITE command, and try to cancel it immidiately, then,
no cancel happens:
sending[918] to ('77.108.78.91', 5060)
INVITE sip:+79201214332@brm-sip.binatel.ru SIP/2.0
Call-ID: 517708372@77.108.78.93
........
received[359] from ('77.108.78.91', 5060)
SIP/2.0 100 trying -- your call is important to us
Call-ID: 517708372@77.108.78.93
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 77.108.78.93:16560;rport=16560;
.......
receivedResponse response= 100 for ua with queue
response put in the ua queue
rtmp-bye
cancel outbound invite
received[885] from ('77.108.78.91', 5060)
SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
77.108.78.93:16560;rport=16560;branch=z9hG4bKV1z4MycoPMJacIMlL_RlHw..
Record-Route: <sip:77.108.78.91;lr=on;ftag=189372003423>
From: "BEBEBE" <sip:test_asterisk_login@brm-sip.binatel.ru>;tag=189372003423
CSeq: 2 INVITE
.............
receivedResponse response= 183 for ua with queue
response put in the ua queue
exception in invite (<type 'exceptions.TypeError'>, TypeError("'NoneType' object is not iterable",), <traceback object at 0x969af04>)
Gateway[0] onResult <amf._Undefined object at 0xb7e8dcec>
received[871] from ('77.108.78.91', 5060)
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
77.108.78.93:16560;rport=16560;branch=z9hG4bKV1z4MycoPMJacIMlL_RlHw..
Record-Route: <sip:77.108.78.91;lr=on;ftag=189372003423>
...........
As you can see, no CANCEL command has been sent to SIP server.
But, if i cancel a call (send BYE command) after phone will start ringing,
then, CANCEL command has been sent to SIP server:
==================================================================
sending[918] to ('77.108.78.91', 5060)
INVITE sip:+79201214332@brm-sip.binatel.ru SIP/2.0
Call-ID: 1935789688@77.108.78.93
...
received[359] from ('77.108.78.91', 5060)
SIP/2.0 100 trying -- your call is important to us
Call-ID: 1935789688@77.108.78.93
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
77.108.78.93:38965;rport=38965;branch=z9hG4bKhN1R185KykadWXy3auAD0w..
From: "BEBEBE" <sip:test_asterisk_login@brm-sip.binatel.ru>;tag=11402477540
........
receivedResponse response= 100 for ua with queue
response put in the ua queue
received[886] from ('77.108.78.91', 5060)
SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
77.108.78.93:38965;rport=38965;branch=z9hG4bKhN1R185KykadWXy3auAD0w..
..........
rtmp-bye
cancel outbound invite
..........
sending[325] to ('77.108.78.91', 5060)
CANCEL sip:+79201214332@brm-sip.binatel.ru SIP/2.0
Content-Length: 0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 77.108.78.93:38965;rport;branch=z9hG4bKhN1R185KykadWXy3auAD0w..
From: "BEBEBE" <sip:test_asterisk_login@brm-sip.binatel.ru>;tag=11402477540
received[372] from ('77.108.78.91', 5060)
SIP/2.0 200 canceling
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 77.108.78.93:38965;rport=38965;
22.08 12:42:58
....
received[465] from ('77.108.78.91', 5060)
SIP/2.0 487 Request Terminated
.....
receivedResponse response= 487 for ua with queue
response put in the ua queue
exception in invite (<type 'exceptions.TypeError'>, TypeError("'NoneType' object is not iterable",), <traceback object at 0x8797cac>)
Gateway[0] onResult <amf._Undefined object at 0xb7e76cec>
========================
In siprtmp_gevent.py, this problem does not exists: CANCEL command is sent
before phone starts ringing, or after - doesnt matters...
Original comment by eag...@gmail.com
on 22 Aug 2011 at 8:51
Original comment by kundan10
on 23 Aug 2011 at 11:28
Fixed in r97 and r98.
Original comment by kundan10
on 20 Sep 2011 at 5:42
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
eag...@gmail.com
on 18 Aug 2011 at 1:22Attachments: