[asterisk-bugs] [Asterisk 0012777]: Pattern matching treats 'x' differently than 'X'
noreply at bugs.digium.com
noreply at bugs.digium.com
Mon Jun 2 21:53:22 CDT 2008
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
======================================================================
http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=12777
======================================================================
Reported By: jsmith
Assigned To:
======================================================================
Project: Asterisk
Issue ID: 12777
Category: PBX/pbx_config
Reproducibility: always
Severity: minor
Priority: high
Status: new
Asterisk Version: SVN
SVN Branch (only for SVN checkouts, not tarball releases): 1.4
SVN Revision (number only!): 117582
Disclaimer on File?: N/A
Request Review:
======================================================================
Date Submitted: 06-02-2008 21:50 CDT
Last Modified: 06-02-2008 21:53 CDT
======================================================================
Summary: Pattern matching treats 'x' differently than 'X'
Description:
Steve Edwards reported
[http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/2008-June/212956.html]
that the pattern _2xxx is evaluated before _2[1-4]00. I went to reply that
it shouldn't be that way, but in my testing, I found he was right.
I think this is a pretty serious bug in the pattern matching code.
As I understand it, Asterisk should be evaluating the patterns one digit
at a time, from left to right. Whenever more than one pattern could
possibly match, the *most constrained* digit should match first. In other
words, given these two patterns, if I dialed 1234, the first one should
match before the second, as it's a more constrained match in the third
digit (it matches two possible values, while the other matches three).
_12[3-4]X
_12[3-5]X
The problem arises in that Asterisk seems to be treating the wildcard 'X'
differently than 'x', and I can't figure out why. Both of them should mean
"any digit 0 through 9", but apparently they don't. See below for more
details:
======================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
jsmith - 06-02-08 21:53
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, by the way I need to say thanks to Steve Edwards for pointing out the
issue, and to Andrew Oulton ([TK]D-Fender on IRC) and Jack Storm
(JackEStorm on IRC) for helping me test this on a variety of different
Asterisk boxes, just to make sure I'm not going insane.
Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
======================================================================
06-02-08 21:53 jsmith Note Added: 0087689
======================================================================
More information about the asterisk-bugs
mailing list