Re: DLR counters on the status page

Did anyone get this message? I've received a couple of returns for  
invalid attachment, but assumed it was from an individual user, not  
the list, but maybe it wasn't?

Regards,
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
[email protected]



On 17/11/2009, at 20:40, Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:

> Please find a zip with the full folder attached.
>
> It's almost a full code rewrite, with lots of changes on the code  
> structure and UI as well, apart from support for the dlr fields.
>
> I'm working on a completely new, "ajaxified" version as well, stay  
> tuned ;)
>
> Regards,
> --
> Alejandro Guerrieri
> [email protected]
>
> <kannel-monitor.zip>
> On 15/11/2009, at 15:44, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> @Alex: any news about kannel-monitor patch?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alexander Malysh
>>
>> Am 11.11.2009 um 19:47 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>
>>> Working on it already, it'll be ready for tomorrow probably.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> --
>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/11/2009, at 19:35, Alvaro Cornejo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Just don't forget the patch for the kannel-monitor
>>>>
>>>> Thanks / Good work
>>>>
>>>> Alvaro
>>>> |
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>>> Envíe y Reciba Datos y mensajes de Texto (SMS) hacia y desde  
>>>> cualquier
>>>> celular y Nextel
>>>> en el Perú, México y en mas de 180 paises. Use aplicaciones 2  
>>>> vias via
>>>> SMS y GPRS online
>>>>           Visitenos en www.perusms.NET www.smsglobal.com.mx y
>>>> www.pravcom.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Alexander Malysh <[email protected] 
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> commited to cvs...
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 17:21 schrieb Alexander Malysh:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I will commit it shortly...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 16:54 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes you're right, now that we have MO and MT dlr info, it  
>>>>>>> makes more sense to have that on the "dlr" section instead of  
>>>>>>> having it along the SMS data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also on the smsc's, having the <received> and <sent> nodes is  
>>>>>>> more clear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm +1 on this new format.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you want me to commit it myself or will you do it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/11/2009, at 16:46, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I changed your patch a bit. I hope that it would me more  
>>>>>>>> clear for users what the all counters means.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> New patch attached...
>>>>>>>> Please let me know what you think?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <dlr_status.diff>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here examples:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  TXT:
>>>>>>>> Status: running, uptime 0d 0h 0m 9s
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WDP: received 0 (0 queued), sent 0 (0 queued)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SMS: received 0 (0 queued), sent 0 (0 queued), store size -1
>>>>>>>> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, outbound  
>>>>>>>> (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DLR: received 0, sent 0
>>>>>>>> DLR: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, outbound  
>>>>>>>> (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec
>>>>>>>> DLR: 0 queued, using internal storage
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No boxes connected
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SMSC connections:
>>>>>>>> FAKE[FAKE]    FAKE:20000 (connecting, rcvd: sms 0 / dlr 0,  
>>>>>>>> sent: sms 0 / dlr 0, failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  XML:
>>>>>>>> <?xml version="1.0"?>
>>>>>>>> <gateway>
>>>>>>>> <status>running, uptime 0d 0h 0m 35s</status>
>>>>>>>>  <wdp>
>>>>>>>>          <received><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></ 
>>>>>>>> received>
>>>>>>>>          <sent><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></sent>
>>>>>>>>  </wdp>
>>>>>>>>  <sms>
>>>>>>>>          <received><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></ 
>>>>>>>> received>
>>>>>>>>          <sent><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></sent>
>>>>>>>>          <storesize>-1</storesize>
>>>>>>>>          <inbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</inbound>
>>>>>>>>          <outbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</outbound>
>>>>>>>>          </sms>
>>>>>>>>  <dlr>
>>>>>>>>          <received><total>0</total></received>
>>>>>>>>          <sent><total>0</total></sent>
>>>>>>>>          <inbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</inbound>
>>>>>>>>          <outbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</outbound>
>>>>>>>>          <queued>0</queued>
>>>>>>>>          <storage>internal</storage>
>>>>>>>>  </dlr>
>>>>>>>> <boxes>
>>>>>>>>  </boxes>
>>>>>>>> <smscs><count>1</count>
>>>>>>>>  <smsc>
>>>>>>>>          <name>FAKE:20000</name>
>>>>>>>>          <admin-id>FAKE</admin-id>
>>>>>>>>          <id>FAKE</id>
>>>>>>>>          <status>connecting</status>
>>>>>>>>          <received><sms>0</sms><dlr>0</dlr></received>
>>>>>>>>          <sent><sms>0</sms><dlr>0</dlr></sent>
>>>>>>>>          <failed>0</failed>
>>>>>>>>          <queued>0</queued>
>>>>>>>>  </smsc>
>>>>>>>> </smscs>
>>>>>>>> </gateway>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 14:27 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please see attached. I'm adding the patch for the kannel- 
>>>>>>>>> monitor later.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <kannel-dlr-status-v2.diff.zip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2009, at 12:33, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 12:09 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, so you'd like the patch to transparently handle the  
>>>>>>>>>>> concept of "outgoing" dlrs?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> yes that would be great... This is 5 minutes patch :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It would be useless on many drivers where Kannel's acting  
>>>>>>>>>>> as a "client" only (SMPP for instance) but yes, on HTTP  
>>>>>>>>>>> and derivatives would make sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2009, at 11:42, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 11:38 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Outgoing DLR's? At least on SMPP, there's not such a  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing: when you submit an MT with dlr-mask/dlr-url set,  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the submit_sm PDU has the delivery receipt flag set.  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the message is accepted (the SMSC sends a  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> submit_sm_resp), kannel creates a first incoming DLR and  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> later on the SMSC sends one incoming (deliver_sm) DLR  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or more, if intermediate DLR's are enabled) with the  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> message status(es).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean with "outgoing DLR's" ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> at least for HTTP smsc we can implement DLR forwarding...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2009, at 9:36, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we have to expand this patch to handle incoming  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and outgoing DLRs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we don't differentiate DLRs from SMS traffic and  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore this is not a issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if we start to differentiate DLRs from SMS we need  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to split it to incoming/outgoing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same as for SMS traffic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexander Malysh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 08:13 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any objections? Can I commit?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2009, at 15:46, Stipe Tolj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri schrieb:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> page. This is much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mixed on the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, *dlr  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0.23,0.12,0.12) msg/sec*,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SMSC connections:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *fake*[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0,  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *dlr 14*, sent 7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yep, I'm in... +0 from my side.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stipe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kölner Landstrasse 419
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 40589 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tolj.org system architecture      Kannel Software  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Foundation (KSF)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.tolj.org/              http:// 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.kannel.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailto:st_{at}_tolj.org            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailto:stolj_{at}_kannel.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>