PATCH: Small bug with DLRs
amalysh at kannel.org
Tue Apr 3 16:04:37 CEST 2007
it's pretty simple. If in documentation mentioned 16 then it's hex value and
all values except 0x16 match with dec because below 0x10 dec and hex
Ben Suffolk wrote:
> Slightly confused then, the SMSC rejected my message at submission,
> and so I should have got back a dlr_mask value of 16 (dec) in the DLR
> according to the documentation, but I got back 22 (dec). Maybe I
> jumped to the wrong conclusion seeing the DLR_SMSC_FAIL set to 0x16
> (22 dec) in the header file
> #define DLR_SUCCESS 0x01
> #define DLR_FAIL 0x02
> #define DLR_BUFFERED 0x04
> #define DLR_SMSC_SUCCESS 0x08
> #define DLR_SMSC_FAIL 0x16
> But does that not strike you as a bit odd though that they all match
> the documentation with the exception of DLR_SMSC_FAIL, and looking at
> them if you were reading them as dec numbers not hex they would
> match. It really does look like a simple typo to me.
> Anyway, if you figure out why I got 22 instead of 16 please let me know.
> On 3 Apr 2007, at 14:35, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>> Hi Ben,
>> your patch is not correct. You will receive SMSC_FAIL or DLR_FAIL
>> on the dlr_mask you used. If you set dlr_mask to request SMSC_FAIL
>> then you
>> will receive it if only DLR_FAIL requested then DLR_FAIL will be set.
>> Ben Suffolk wrote:
>>> Just noticed that when the SMSC rejects a message at submission the
>>> dlr was set to 22 (0x16) not 16 (0x10). Just a bad define in the
>>> header file.
More information about the devel