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

2009-09-04 Alexander Malysh <amalysh at kannel.org>
     * aclocal.m4, configure, configure.in, gw/dlr_mysql.c, gwlib/ 
dbpool_mysql.c,
       test/test_dbpool.c: implemented select/update function calls  
for dbpool_mysql. This
       require mysql prepaid statement support and therefore mysql  
version >= 4.1.
       Changed dlr_mysql to use these new function calls. This fixes  
#258.

Would make sense if I update sqlbox to use those calls as well right?

Regards,
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
[email protected]



On 04/09/2009, at 9:45, Alexander Malysh wrote:

> ahh alex,
> before you start to add meta_data to db storages please give me time  
> to merge mysql-prepaid branch. Just update your cvs in 30-60min.
>
> Thanks,
> Alexander Malysh
>
> Am 04.09.2009 um 09:40 schrieb Alexander Malysh:
>
>> 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]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>