« Return to Thread: [PATCH] account field too long but not explicit.

Re: [PATCH] account field too long but not explicit.

by Alexander Malysh :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View in Thread

Hi,

patch commited to cvs.

Thanks,
Alex

Vincent CHAVANIS schrieb:

>
> I do not understand what's going on.
> I just resynchro my source tree to CVS and patched it again.
>
> here is again the patch
>
> Vincent.
>
>
> Alexander Malysh a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't think your patch patch is against CVS HEAD...
>>
>> patch -p2 --dry-run < /tmp/patch_account_field_v2.txt
>> patching file gw/smsbox.c
>> Hunk #2 FAILED at 2142.
>> 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file gw/smsbox.c.rej
>>
>> Please rebase your patch and resend...
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>
>> Vincent CHAVANIS schrieb:
>>>
>>> yep, i omit the ";" after the returnerror line
>>> due to a copy/paste error
>>> Fixed on this version.
>>>
>>> Vincent.
>>>
>>>
>>> Alexander Malysh a écrit :
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> unfortunately patch doesn't apply cleanly:
>>>> patching file gw/smsbox.c
>>>> Hunk #2 FAILED at 2142.
>>>> 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file gw/smsbox.c.rej
>>>>
>>>> Please resend...
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>> Vincent CHAVANIS schrieb:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a small fix that warn the user that the account field
>>>>> is too long. I've spend some time to find what's going on with this
>>>>> field and i've noticed that the field was too long.
>>>>> Also i've defined it as ACCOUNT_MAX_LEN.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any comments ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Vincent.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- /gateway-cvs/gw/smsbox.c    2008-06-24 14:10:36.000000000 +0200
>>>>> +++ /gateway/gw/smsbox.c        2008-09-23 11:52:07.000000000 +0200
>>>>> @@ -88,6 +88,8 @@
>>>>>
>>>>>  #define O_DESTROY(a) { if(a) octstr_destroy(a); a = NULL; }
>>>>>
>>>>> +#define ACCOUNT_MAX_LEN 32
>>>>> +
>>>>>  /* Defaults for the HTTP request queueing inside http_queue_thread */
>>>>>  #define HTTP_MAX_RETRIES    0
>>>>>  #define HTTP_RETRY_DELAY    10 /* in sec. */
>>>>> @@ -2140,11 +2142,11 @@
>>>>>      msg->sms.sms_type = mt_push;
>>>>>      msg->sms.sender = octstr_duplicate(newfrom);
>>>>>      if(octstr_len(account)) {
>>>>> -       if(octstr_len(account) <= 32 &&
>>>>> +       if(octstr_len(account) <= ACCOUNT_MAX_LEN &&
>>>>>            octstr_search_chars(account, octstr_imm("[]\n\r"), 0) ==
>>>>> -1) {
>>>>>             msg->sms.account = account ? octstr_duplicate(account)
>>>>> : NULL;
>>>>>         } else {
>>>>> -           returnerror = octstr_create("Account field misformed,
>>>>> rejected");
>>>>> +           returnerror = octstr_create("Account field misformed or
>>>>> too long, rejected")
>>>>>             goto field_error;
>>>>>         }
>>>>>      }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


 « Return to Thread: [PATCH] account field too long but not explicit.