Re: PATCH: Small bug with DLRs

Hi Ben,

sorry you are right. That was 0x10 and is in my local copy :)
Stipe made commit that changed it:
1.21         (stolj    07-Jan-07): #define      DLR_SMSC_FAIL       0x16

Ok, I will correct it in cvs and commit.

Thanks for pointing it!


Ben Suffolk wrote:

> I had assumed it was a binary bit mask :-
> 
> 00001 Success
> 00010 Fail
> 00100 Buffered
> 01000 SMSC Success
> 10000 SMSC Failed
> 
> Which would tie up with the value of decimal 31(11111)  for
> submission of all DLRs.
> 
> However if the last value is in fact 0x16 (10110) then it would cause
> problems with matching against specific bits like FAIL and BUFFERED.
> 
> I really can't see it should be 0x16 myself.
> 
> In fact just looking in the docs it states its a bit mask :-
> 
> "The value is a bit mask composed of: 1: Delivered to phone, 2: Non-
> Delivered to Phone, 4: Queued on SMSC, 8: Delivered to SMSC, 16: Non-
> Delivered to SMSC"
> 
> Regards
> 
> Ben
> 
> 
> On 3 Apr 2007, at 15:04, Alexander Malysh wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> it's pretty simple. If in documentation mentioned 16 then it's hex
>> value and
>> all values except 0x16 match with dec because below 0x10 dec and hex
>> equal :)
>>
>> Ben Suffolk wrote:
>>
>>> Ok,
>>>
>>> Slightly confused then, the SMSC rejected my message at submission,
>>> and so I should have got back a dlr_mask value of 16 (dec) in the DLR
>>> according to the documentation, but I got back 22 (dec). Maybe I
>>> jumped to the wrong conclusion seeing the DLR_SMSC_FAIL set to 0x16
>>> (22 dec) in the header file
>>>
>>> #define       DLR_SUCCESS         0x01
>>> #define       DLR_FAIL            0x02
>>> #define       DLR_BUFFERED        0x04
>>> #define       DLR_SMSC_SUCCESS    0x08
>>> #define       DLR_SMSC_FAIL       0x16
>>>
>>> But does that not strike you as a bit odd though that they all match
>>> the documentation with the exception of DLR_SMSC_FAIL, and looking at
>>> them if you were reading them as dec numbers not hex they would
>>> match. It really does look like a simple typo to me.
>>>
>>> Anyway, if you figure out why I got 22 instead of 16 please let me
>>> know.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Ben
>>>
>>> On 3 Apr 2007, at 14:35, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Ben,
>>>>
>>>> your patch is not correct. You will receive SMSC_FAIL or DLR_FAIL
>>>> depending
>>>> on the dlr_mask you used. If you set dlr_mask to request SMSC_FAIL
>>>> then you
>>>> will receive it if only DLR_FAIL requested then DLR_FAIL will be
>>>> set.
>>>>
>>>> Ben Suffolk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just noticed that when the SMSC rejects a message at submission the
>>>>> dlr was set to 22 (0x16) not 16 (0x10). Just a bad define in the
>>>>> header file.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>
>>

-- 
Thanks,
Alex