-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 430
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
test: call - add call on-hold/resume test #2775
Conversation
I added a function to re: baresip/re#990 Does someone have a better idea? |
The last commit replaces ACK check from UA a to b. Because b sends the SIP Reply also b has to wait for the ACK. Now the ACK check fails because it was not received during re_main. A reason could be that the loop was canceled to early. |
For a correct cancel rule that waits for an ACK maybe we need an event/callback function. Maybe the new getter function is not enough. I have to think if we can avoid this. |
@sreimers do you have a better idea to implement a wait for ACK?
|
a5c8733
to
1c90e6e
Compare
re-based to main HEAD after merge of 33047e6 |
Not sure if I understand all details of the problem, is it maybe possible to add/register or reuse any callback instead of the active wait loop? edit: Ah I see, you suggested something similar already. |
Yes, but as we know another callback increases the complexity. Currently there is no callback that can be used. Except if we put an SDP into the ACK. This would test something different, a special case where the offer is contained in the SIP reply and the answer in the ACK, if I understood |
Maybe a active tmr callback works better in this case, it's not perfect but should prevent timeout warnings. |
I tried to add an The timer is a good idea for checking the ACK. |
33eff9e
to
bd630df
Compare
Thanks for writing this test. This looks like a good addition :) |
Your welcome! In following PRs we could add the wait for ACK condition to more tests. Maybe other re-INVITE tests. |
please resolve the conflicts .. |
bd630df
to
b529844
Compare
Wait for ACK should not check n_incoming nor n_progress
This is ready to merge from my side. Any more suggestions? |
relates to: baresip/re#990
try to reproduce: #2772