[cisco-voip] UDS Searches not sanitizing the Plus Symbol

[Justin Steinberg]

While Anthony's encoding is right, I actually think the documentation does
intend to actually mean you can act as though the + was not in the phone
number value as stored in AD.

I have used the query below

https://{host}:8443/cucm-uds/users?numberlast=3175551234

To search for phone numbers in AD.  This finds any number with right
justified digits above.  This should find results for +13175551234,
13175551234, and 3175551234.   If there are hypens in the numbers in AD
(e.g. 317-555-1234).

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Anthony Holloway <
avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com> wrote:

> No worries.  Transitioning to app dev will be a bumpy road for a lot of UC
> Engineers, we might as well help each other progress forward.
>
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:37 PM Nathan Reeves <nathan.a.reeves at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> lol, cheers for that, should have picked that up earlier.  Quick test
>> shows that works perfectly.
>>
>> When the docs mention that it ignores the plus symbol, I was working on
>> the assumption that it therefore would ignore the plus symbol in the actual
>> number.  Wrong assumption.
>>
>> Thanks again
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Anthony Holloway <
>> avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Plus signs (+) in URL query parameters (the part after the question mark
>>> [?]) are treated as spaces.  E.g., ?name=anthony+holloway == "anthony
>>> holloway"  So, you're effectively asking UDS for " 61400111111" (note the
>>> leading space, and omission of the plus sign [+]).
>>>
>>> The work around is to use some sort of URL encoding library, which will
>>> build your URL with the plus sign (+) encoded with it's percent sign (%)
>>> equivelent, which happens to be %2B.
>>>
>>> So, your submitted UDS request would actually look like:
>>>
>>> https://172.20.2.21:8443/cucm-uds/users?number=%2B61400111111
>>>
>>> Finally, this is not a function of UDS at all, and something you'll need
>>> to know, now that you are explorely RESTful APIs which rely on URL
>>> structures to work with data.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:46 AM Nathan Reeves <
>>> nathan.a.reeves at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Taking a look around at what options we have to drive additional
>>>> directories for our IP phones and decided to take a quick look at using UDS
>>>> as the data source, accessing it via the published API.
>>>>
>>>> One thing I'm finding (which I can't see any bug report on), is that
>>>> number searches, where the number in UDS contains a plus, does not return
>>>> search results based on the query submitted.
>>>>
>>>> I have a user configured with a mobile number in PlusE164 (+61400111111
>>>> <+61%20400%20111%20111> for example) which is pulled into the CUCM
>>>> directory via LDAP sync.
>>>>
>>>> The API docs note that brackets, plus symbols etc are all ignored in
>>>> the search.  When I access the UDS API and construct a query string in a
>>>> URL along the lines of 'https://172.20.2.21:8443/
>>>> cucm-uds/users?number=61400', the returned response is 0 results.  If
>>>> I update the Mobile number to remove just the plus (and resync LDAP), the
>>>> same search now returns my user with the mobile number correctly searched.
>>>>
>>>> Running 11.5(1)SU1 (haven't yet checked this against SU2), attempted to
>>>> use native UDS but also tried searching while UDS Proxy is enabled.  Same
>>>> results either way.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone seen this issue or am I missing something?  I can only assume
>>>> that the sanitized query doesn't correctly ignore the plus symbol.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Nathan
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20170413/2ec8049d/attachment.html>