Re: [PATCH] empty SMS replaced by default message

Hello,
there hasn't been any remark on this patch, but it hasn't been committed 
either. Is there a problem with it ?

Regards,

Colin Pitrat (Bull Services Telco)
Bull,  Architect of an Open World (TM)
Tél : +33 (0)  1 30 80 72 93
www.bull.com


Colin Pitrat wrote:
> Hello,
> I sent this patch a few days ago, but I've been told that mail with 
> patch attached should be prefixed with [PATCH] so I resend it.
> 
> The problem is that judging by fields_to_dcs function in sms.c, an empty
> message with an activating MWI flag should result in "discard message"
> MWI whereas a non-empty message should result in "store message" MWI.
> 
> But when the smsbox handle the message sent by sendsms HTTP interface,
> it replace the empty text by a default message. This problem is already
> highlighted in the comment in the file. Here is the interesting part of
> the file.
> 
> /*
>   * Empty message? Two alternatives have to be handled:
>   *  a) it's a HTTP sms-service reply: either ignore it or
>   *     substitute the "empty" warning defined
>   *  b) it's a sendsms HTTP interface call: leave the message empty
>   *     if at least a UDH is given.
>   *
>   * XXX this still does not cover the case when the sendsms interface is
>   * used with *no* text and udh. What should we do then?!
>   */
>   if (octstr_len(msg->sms.msgdata) == 0 && octstr_len(msg->sms.udhdata)
> == 0) {
>       if (trans != NULL && urltrans_omit_empty(trans))
>           return 0;
>       else
>           msg->sms.msgdata = octstr_duplicate(reply_emptymessage);
>   }
> 
> My proposition is to replace the if statement in order to check if the
> message is a mt_reply (case a) or not.
> 
> Regards,
> Colin
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> diff -ur gateway/gw/smsbox.c gateway-new/gw/smsbox.c
> --- gateway/gw/smsbox.c	2006-07-13 10:05:57.000000000 +0200
> +++ gateway-new/gw/smsbox.c	2006-07-13 10:20:11.000000000 +0200
> @@ -324,12 +324,8 @@
>       *  a) it's a HTTP sms-service reply: either ignore it or
>       *     substitute the "empty" warning defined
>       *  b) it's a sendsms HTTP interface call: leave the message empty
> -     *     if at least a UDH is given.
> -     *
> -     * XXX this still does not cover the case when the sendsms interface is
> -     * used with *no* text and udh. What should we do then?!
>       */
> -    if (octstr_len(msg->sms.msgdata) == 0 && octstr_len(msg->sms.udhdata) == 0) {
> +    if (octstr_len(msg->sms.msgdata) == 0 && msg->sms.sms_type == mt_reply) {
>          if (trans != NULL && urltrans_omit_empty(trans))
>              return 0;
>          else
>

diff -ur gateway/gw/smsbox.c gateway-new/gw/smsbox.c
--- gateway/gw/smsbox.c	2006-07-13 10:05:57.000000000 +0200
+++ gateway-new/gw/smsbox.c	2006-07-13 10:20:11.000000000 +0200
@@ -324,12 +324,8 @@
      *  a) it's a HTTP sms-service reply: either ignore it or
      *     substitute the "empty" warning defined
      *  b) it's a sendsms HTTP interface call: leave the message empty
-     *     if at least a UDH is given.
-     *
-     * XXX this still does not cover the case when the sendsms interface is
-     * used with *no* text and udh. What should we do then?!
      */
-    if (octstr_len(msg->sms.msgdata) == 0 && octstr_len(msg->sms.udhdata) == 0) {
+    if (octstr_len(msg->sms.msgdata) == 0 && msg->sms.sms_type == mt_reply) {
         if (trans != NULL && urltrans_omit_empty(trans))
             return 0;
         else