Re: [PATCH] Pass meta-data from message to dlrs

Hi Alex,

first patch seems still broken:
+    dlr->meta_data = (msg->sms.meta_data ? octstr_duplicate(msg- 
 >sms.meta_data) : octstr_create(""));

we don't have meta_data in dlr struct. otherwise +1

second patch:
+            if (msg->sms.meta_data == NULL)
+                msg->sms.meta_data = octstr_create("");
+            meta_data_set_value(msg->sms.meta_data, "smpp",  
octstr_imm("dlr_status"),
+                                octstr_format("%d", pdu- 
 >u.submit_sm_resp.command_status), 1);
+

Would it it not better to have error code formated as smpp-tlv group  
and as error message?
+                                octstr_format("0x%08lx", pdu- 
 >u.submit_sm_resp.command_status), 1);

Thanks,
Alexander Malysh


Am 03.09.2009 um 21:13 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:

> Oh, I see, I've attached the ~ backup file from vim. This are the  
> right files, just in case:
>
> <kannel-dlr-command-status.diff>
> <kannel-dlr-meta-data.diff>
>
> --
> Alejandro Guerrieri
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> On 03/09/2009, at 21:06, Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:
>
>> Oh, that must have filtered into the patch. Weird :P
>>
>> Sorry, it's safe to remove it.
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>> [email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/09/2009, at 20:56, Gustavo Mohme C. wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Alejandro,
>>> I get this error after applying your patch.
>>>
>>> gw/dlr.c: In function ‘dlr_add’:
>>> gw/dlr.c:352: error: ‘struct dlr_entry’ has no member named  
>>> ‘meta_data’
>>> make: *** [gw/dlr.o] Error 1
>>>
>>> After editing /gw/dlr_p.h and adding meta_data to the struct  
>>> dlr_entry, it compiled with no complaints. Is this the correct  
>>> thing to do?
>>> I was patching the latest kannel snapshot....
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gustavo
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Alejandro Guerrieri <[email protected] 
>>> > wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This is a set of two patches, though they're both very simple and  
>>> could have been mixed, I've preferred to split to honor the rule  
>>> of not mixing features in a single patch.
>>>
>>> Patch #1, kannel-drl-meta-data.diff allows meta-data to be passed  
>>> when sending a message to come back into the "fake" dlr that  
>>> kannel generates when the smsc accepts or rejects a message. It  
>>> could be extended to work with the different dlr engines so the  
>>> meta-data would be also passed on the intermediate and final dlr's  
>>> delivered by the carriers (though it would require changes on the  
>>> database structure to add a "meta_data" column of course. I'm not  
>>> sure this would be needed, the dlr-url could be easily abused to  
>>> pass application-specific parameters without much hassle.
>>>
>>> Patch #2, kannel-dlr-command-status.diff builds on top of patch #1  
>>> and creates a meta data value called "dlr_status" that comes back  
>>> on the "fake" dlr generated by kannel (This was the real reason  
>>> why patch #1 was created). The value there is the "command_status"  
>>> value some people on the list needs to get from the submit_sm_resp  
>>> PDU's.
>>>
>>> Example usage:
>>>
>>> On sendsms:
>>>
>>> http://localhost:13013/cgi-bin/sendsms?username=kannel&password=kannel&from=12345&to=12345678&smsc=mysmsc&text=Hello&dlr-mask=31&meta-data=%3Fsmpp%3Fmy_own_field%3D1234&dlr-url=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%2Fx%3Fdata%3D%25D
>>>
>>> Notes:
>>>
>>> meta-data is urlencoded version of: ?smpp?my_own_field=1234
>>> dlr-url is urlencoded version of: http://localhost/x?data=%D
>>>
>>> So, after applying Patch #1, kannel would call the following url:
>>>
>>> http://localhost/x?md=%3Fsmpp%3Fmy_own_field%3D1234
>>>
>>> The "md" parameter, once urldecoded would look like:
>>>
>>> ?smpp?my_own_field=1234
>>>
>>> You can pass as many parameters as you want of course and they  
>>> would be added to meta-data along with any other fields you've  
>>> defined on your smpp-tlv groups, etc.
>>>
>>> So far so good, in fact you could pass this kind of stuff on  
>>> regular url variables, but the goal of this patch was to allow to  
>>> add stuff back from the smsc's response.
>>>
>>> Now, with patch #2 also applied, the url returned would be  
>>> something like this:
>>>
>>> http://localhost/x?md=%3Fsmpp%3Fmy_own_field%3D1234%26dlr_status%3D69%26
>>>
>>> The "md" parameter, once urldecoded would look like:
>>>
>>> ?smpp?my_own_field=1234&dlr_status=69&
>>>
>>> In this case, dlr_status gets loaded with submit_sm_resp's  
>>> command_status which was: 69 = 0x00000045 (Submit Failed).
>>>
>>> The "sequence_number" could be added just as easily (not a bad  
>>> idea imho). What do you think? "dlr_sequence" or "dlr_seq" would  
>>> be ok?
>>>
>>> I'm writing the userguide patch if this goes forward of course.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> --
>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>