Hello, yes, the return codes are interpreted in a special way, see:
- http://www.kamailio.org/wiki/cookbooks/devel/core#return Same applies for the functions exported by the modules. Cheers, Daniel On 11/02/16 13:41, Phil Lavin wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Just a sanity check, really. Does Kamailio consider negative response > codes to be false? For example, should the following log execute? > > > > if (!foo()) { # Returns -2 > > x_log(“Foo is false”); > > } > > > > The reason for asking here is that I’m implementing flood protection > using pike, based off the kamailio.cfg that ships with v4.3. The logic > is thus: > > > > if (!pike_check_req()) { > > # Do blocking > > } > > > > However pike_check_req only returns -1 or -2 in the case of failure, > never 0. The blocking code is, thus, never executed. Changing to > explicitly check for != 1 works correctly. > > > > Am I missing something here or is the example kamailio.cfg incorrect? > > > > > > Cheers > > > > _______________________________________________ > SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list > sr-users@lists.sip-router.org > http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Book: SIP Routing With Kamailio - http://www.asipto.com http://miconda.eu
_______________________________________________ SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
