Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
sofia_overcome_sip_uri_weakness()appended;transport=<proto>and the caller'sparamsto the end of the URI string. When the URI has a?headerspart (RFC 3261 19.1.1), such assip:test@host?myvar=hello,the parameters went after the
?. sofia-sip then moved them into a SIP header, which gavemyvar: hello;transport=tls, and the Request-URI had no transport parameter. Remove the?headerspart before the function builds the URI, and add it again at the end, inside the closing>for the<...>form. Theport=check now sees only the part before the?, so a header that containsport=no longer stops the transportfrom being added. URIs without
?give the same output as before.Add
test_sofia_overcome_sip_uri_weakness_uri_headerstotest_sofia_funcs.Type of Change
Related Issues
Testing
Checklist
Additional Notes