This seems to be a paradox when running a perl script from a session then executing perl again on the same session from a different thread.
I fixed it by converting any execution of perl in the execute_on_* family of operators to only run background mode which is to store the command in the session stack to be executed only by the session thread instead of on the spot by the outide thread. changing the execute_on_answer to perl::/path/to/script.pl would also eliminate the crash in code that has not been updated with this patch.
This is just a limitation of embedded perl we have to live with.
On start DTMF packets we were showing the last write timestamp as a
signed value when it's an unsigned value, which could result in it
appearing incongruous with later packets where the value was displayed
correctly.
Previously we would continue considering phrase actions even after
receiving a break action; we would only break on the next input
clause. It appears the intent here was to break before the next
action.
We were leaking memory when break_on_match was set or when we received
back SWITCH_STATUS_BREAK from a callee as we were failing to free
field_expanded_alloc.
If pattern is null we're setting it to a non-null value, so this
branch will always be taken.
Use `git diff -w` or `git log -p -w` to see what's going on in this
commit.
I found a problem here but it may not completely match your expectations.
I reviewed the RFC 4028 and checked against the code and I discovered we should not be putting a Min-SE in any response at all besides a 422:
section 5:
The Min-SE header field MUST NOT be used in responses except for
those with a 422 response code. It indicates the minimum value of
the session interval that the server is willing to accept.
I corrected this problem and implemented the 422 response so if you request a value lower than the minimum specified for the profile.
If the value is equal or higher to the minimum, it will be reflected in the Session-Expires header in the response and no Min-SE will be present.
Prior to this commit, if anything at all went wrong in
switch_ivr_phrase_macro_event() we would generate a warning like this:
[WARNING] switch_ivr_play_say.c:348 Macro [macro_name]: 'pattern_name' did not match any patterns
This is clearly misleading. The natural thing to do on seeing that
message is to verify that the language files are there, and that the
pattern really does exist in that macro. But none of that was usually
the problem. The message would be generated if the language wasn't
found, or if the channel had gone away, for example.
With this commit, we verify that we actually tried looking for the
pattern before displaying the warning about the pattern not matching.
