[Home]

Summary:ASTERISK-14967: [patch] Call fails to go through starting with build 1.6.0.14
Reporter:Andrew Parisio (parisioa)Labels:
Date Opened:2009-10-09 12:58:38Date Closed:2009-11-30 13:39:07.000-0600
Priority:MajorRegression?No
Status:Closed/CompleteComponents:Channels/chan_sip/Interoperability
Versions:Frequency of
Occurrence
Related
Issues:
Environment:Attachments:( 0) 16049.diff
( 1) asterisk_1.6.0.13_successful.txt
( 2) asterisk_1.6.0.14_unsuccessful.txt
Description:Calling from a phone attached to asterisk into microsoft office communications server works perfectly fine between builds 8 (havent tried older than 8), and 13.  Starting with build 14 the call does not answer.  When i answer on the MOC side, the Asterisk phone never finds out that the call was answered.  I did a call on build 13, and a call on build 14 with debug and verbose set to 4 like requested.

The opposite direction, calling from MOC to asterisk works fine under any build.  This problem persists in 1.6.1.6, haven't tested other builds in the 1.6.1.x tree.
Comments:By: Elazar Broad (ebroad) 2009-10-09 13:12:08

MOC uses TCP I believe. There were some issues with TCP, can you try the patch from https://issues.asterisk.org/view.php?id=15896. It should apply ok, let me know if it doesn't and Ill clean it up. Thanks!

By: Andrew Parisio (parisioa) 2009-10-09 13:16:34

Yes, using TCP.  I'm not familiar with patching so i dont know if this means it needs to be cleaned up, or i did something wrong.  I just copy/pasted the code provided.   wget 'https://issues.asterisk.org/file_download.php?file_id=23802&type=bug' -O - | patch -p0


Resolving issues.asterisk.org... 76.164.171.231
Connecting to issues.asterisk.org|76.164.171.231|:443... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 1096 (1.1K) [text/plain]
Saving to: `STDOUT'

100%[===================================================================================================================================================================================================>] 1,096       --.-K/s   in 0s

2009-10-09 11:12:40 (34.1 MB/s) - `-' saved [1096/1096]

can't find file to patch at input line 4
Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option?
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|diff -Nurp -x .svn a/channels/chan_sip.c b/channels/chan_sip.c
|--- a/channels/chan_sip.c      2009-09-15 01:49:22.859014584 -0400
|+++ b/channels/chan_sip.c      2009-09-15 01:51:23.515075235 -0400
--------------------------
File to patch:

By: Elazar Broad (ebroad) 2009-10-09 13:18:45

Try the attached patch. It should apply cleanly. When you are done, stop asterisk, and rebuild, using make and make install.



By: Andrew Parisio (parisioa) 2009-10-09 13:29:51

Sweet, the patch works.  Will this be included in the next build, or will i need to remember to apply this patch each time I compile.

edit: it works against 1.6.1.6 cleanly as well.



By: Elazar Broad (ebroad) 2009-10-09 13:38:51

Great to hear! It is included in head revisions, and trunk, additionally it should be included in any releases after the patch commit date.

By: Elazar Broad (ebroad) 2009-10-09 13:40:58

This was fixed by a patch that file committed against the head revisions, so past releases need to be patched manually.

By: Andrew Parisio (parisioa) 2009-11-18 18:23:05.000-0600

just tested 1.6.1.9 and the bug still exists, had to apply the patch again.  I thought the patch was committed?

By: Andrew Parisio (parisioa) 2009-11-18 18:28:24.000-0600

i just compiled against the SVN tree and the bug is fixed there, so i guess it just hasn't made it in to the last few releases?

By: Elazar Broad (ebroad) 2009-11-29 02:08:44.000-0600

Ill have to look into why this didn't make it into 1.6.1.9. According to the note left by file in 15896, he applied the patch to the 1.6.1 tree as well...

By: Andrew Parisio (parisioa) 2009-11-29 16:21:45.000-0600

it's in 1.6.1.10 but not in 1.6.1.9
i checked and it is in the 1.6.1 tree as well.

By: Elazar Broad (ebroad) 2009-11-30 13:37:52.000-0600

1.6.1.9 was a security only release, that's why it wasn't included.

By: Leif Madsen (lmadsen) 2009-11-30 13:38:25.000-0600

If you had read the release announcement for 1.6.1.9, or the ChangeLog, then you'd see that 1.6.1.9 was a security only fix, and did not have bug fixes. That is why 1.6.1.10 has the fix, because it is a bug fix release, per the release announcement and ChangeLog.

By: Elazar Broad (ebroad) 2009-11-30 13:39:07.000-0600

1.6.1.9 was a security only release, so the fix wasn't included.