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

Hi Alex,

if you add:
+   Octstr *meta_data;
to dlr struct then you have add meta_data column to all storage  
types :) otherwise don't add it. If you ask me, I would say, if you  
add it for faked dlrs then you have
to add it to db storages as well.

as to the points:
1) +0
2) -1 because I don't see reason to add internal smpp sequence. this  
is just one counter and will not add any useful information.
3) ++1 :)

Thanks,
Alexander Malysh

Am 04.09.2009 um 01:08 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:

> Ok, silly diff errors aside (I wasn't including dlr_p.h :P), here's  
> the new patches also changing the error code format as Alex suggested.
>
> <kannel-dlr-meta-data.diff>
> <kannel-dlr-command-status.diff>
>
> Userguide patch coming later.
>
> Just a few more ideas to consider:
>
> 1. Adding one more called "dlr_status_text" with the text  
> description from smpp_error_to_string(pdu- 
> >u.submit_sm_resp.command_status). Not sure if it makes sense, this  
> could be done at the application level with a simple table...
>
> 2. Adding one more called "dlr_sequence" with the sequence_number  
> parameter.
>
> 3. Extending patch #1 adding the meta-data column on all DB  
> implementations, so meta-data could be passed and stored on dlr's  
> other than the first one generated by kannel.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Alejandro Guerrieri
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> On 03/09/2009, at 23:33, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>
>> 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]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>