Re: [PATCH] dlr_mem.c & dlr_sdb.c check for dst

ok, that makes sense to me.  basically strip down the octstr to 10
characters and then use a like clause in the sql query.  i think this
would work for my usage and as far as i can tell (which might not be too
far :-) would not break current usage.

do you already have this change made for the other dlr types (mem,sdb)?
if not, i can make a patch for the dlr_sdb and dlr_mem types.

thx
nick


ps. just looked at the code for dlr_oracle and it seems to be performing
the check on the full destination number:

    sql = octstr_format("SELECT %S, %S, %S, %S, %S, %S FROM %S WHERE
%S=:1 AND %S=:2 AND %S=:3 AND ROWNUM < 2",




On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 14:56, Alexander Malysh wrote:
> heh, I should really find time to merge our changes ;)
> We do some magic:
> 
> static struct dlr_entry* dlr_mysql_get(const Octstr *smsc, const Octstr *ts, 
> const Octstr *dst)
> {
> ...
>     int strip = (octstr_len(dst) > 10 ? octstr_len(dst) - 10 : 
> (octstr_len(dst) > 7 ? octstr_len(dst) - 7 : 0));
>    query = octstr_create("SELECT ... WHERE ... AND %s like '%%%s'",
> 	octstr_get_cstr(field-dst), octstr_get_cstr(dst)+strip);
> ...
> }
> 
> because destination is always really phone number and phone number is as rule 
> > 10 we are safe here.
> 
> Just as example Vodafone germany:
> sent: 00491721111111
> dlr: 01721111111
> dlr-lookup: like '%1721111111'
> 
> P.S. If oracle dlr module makes lookup with a full destination number then 
> it's bug and should be fixed asap...
> 
> On Wednesday 31 March 2004 14:43, Nicholas Rahn wrote:
> > To answer part of my own question, it seems to me that the reason I
> > don't have the "+" character as part of the destination field of the dlr
> > is because the dlr destination field never passes through the
> > "normalize_number" function as the sender/receiver fields of mo/mt
> > messages do.
> >
> > digging a bit deaper in the code shows that the normalization of the
> > destination dlr field might be best done in the "dlr_find" function.  of
> > course, this might break some people's dlr configurations.
> >
> > anyone have any thoughts on this?  is modifying the dlr_find function to
> > normalize the dlr destination field a good or a bad idea?
> >
> > nick
> >
> > On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 10:32, Nicholas Rahn wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This patch adds the check for the destination to dlr verification in
> > > internal and sdb storage.  As more than one sms can be sent with the
> > > same timestamp and smsc-id, these are not enough to ensure unicity of
> > > the dlrs.  So, as Robert Galach did for dlr_oracle.c, this patch adds
> > > the destination number to the check.  NOTE: mysql is now the only dlr
> > > storage that does not use this approach.
> > >
> > > One thing i have noticed is that the CIMD2 smsc that i connect to
> > > accepts a destination number in international format (i.e. +41).
> > > However, the dlr received back from the SMSC does not contain the "+"
> > > character.  So now (with my patch above :-), none of the received dlrs
> > > match!  Can anyone suggest a solution to this?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > nick