[asterisk-dev] Fwd: [asterisk-users] Asterisk 1.8.7.1 forcing uLaw bug NOT fixed yet

[Kevin P. Fleming]

On 12/28/2011 03:20 PM, Bruce B wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Can this bug be fixed? Apparently the offending code is what is
> mentioned below by Danny Nicholas.

This is incorrect. The code posted below is what generates the warning 
message, but it (correctly) generates the message when a frame is 
written to a channel in a format that the channel is not expecting.

Something is causing these frames to be sent; that is the real cause of 
this bug. Other than the warning messages, though, I haven't seen anyone 
report an actual *problem* (one-way audio, no audio, bad audio, etc.). 
If the only problem is some annoying warning messages, and calls are 
otherwise successful, this is not going to be a high priority to get fixed.

>
> Regards,
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Danny Nicholas* <danny at debsinc.com <mailto:danny at debsinc.com>>
> Date: Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 3:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk 1.8.7.1 forcing uLaw bug NOT
> fixed yet
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> <asterisk-users at lists.digium.com <mailto:asterisk-users at lists.digium.com>>
>
>
> This might or might not help, but here is the offending code in 1.8.8
>    case AST_FRAME_VOICE:
>                 if (!(frame->subclass.codec & ast->nativeformats)) {
>                         char s1[512], s2[512], s3[512];
>                         ast_log(LOG_WARNING, "Asked to transmit frame type
> %s, while native formats is %s read/write = %s/%s\n",
>                                 ast_getformatname(frame->subclass.codec),
>                                 ast_getformatname_multiple(s1, sizeof(s1),
> ast->nativeformats & AST_FORMAT_AUDIO_MASK),
>                                 ast_getformatname_multiple(s2, sizeof(s2),
> ast->readformat),
>                                 ast_getformatname_multiple(s3, sizeof(s3),
> ast->writeformat));
> and the comparable code in 10.0.0
>       case AST_FRAME_VOICE:
>                 if (!(ast_format_cap_iscompatible(ast->nativeformats,
> &frame->subclass.format))) {
>                         char s1[512];
>                         ast_log(LOG_WARNING, "Asked to transmit frame type
> %s, while native formats is %s read/write = %s/%s\n",
>                                 ast_getformatname(&frame->subclass.format),
>                                 ast_getformatname_multiple(s1, sizeof(s1),
> ast->nativeformats),
>                                 ast_getformatname(&ast->readformat),
>                                 ast_getformatname(&ast->writeformat));
>
> I personally avoided the 1.6 and 1.8 branches like the plague and don't know
> if this "bug" is corrected by the other fixes in 10.0.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com
> <mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com>
> [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com
> <mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com>] On Behalf Of Eric Wieling
> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 2:05 PM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk 1.8.7.1 forcing uLaw bug NOT fixed
> yet
>
> The issue is not fixed in 1.8.8.0 either.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com
> <mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com>
> [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com
> <mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com>] On Behalf Of Bruce B
> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 3:00 PM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: [asterisk-users] Asterisk 1.8.7.1 forcing uLaw bug NOT fixed yet
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I see that there was a bug in version 1.8.5.x and people were advised to
> move to 1.8.7.1 but now I have 1.8.7.1 and experiencing the same problem.
> Here is the output:
>
> "chan_sip.c: Asked to transmit frame type ulaw, while native formats is
> 0x100 (g729) read/write = 0x100 (g729)/0x100 (g729)"
>
>
> Now, I see an update to 1.8.8.1 is available. I am wondering if this issue
> is fixed in this version or not? Furthermore, has anyone tested 1.8.8.1 yet?
> Are there any other problems to that? It's frustrating as I see we should
> once again move back to 1.6x and forget about 1.8x all together.
>
> Any input is appreciated.
>
>
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________________________
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs:
> http://www.asterisk.org/hello
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________________________
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs:
> http://www.asterisk.org/hello
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
>
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________________________
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-dev mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>     http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev


-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
Jabber: kfleming at digium.com | SIP: kpfleming at digium.com | Skype: kpfleming
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org