silc_client_get_clients() always returns SILC_STATUS_ERR_NOT_ENOUGH_PARAMS

[silc@holmosapien.com]

On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 04:06:55PM +0100, Pekka Riikonen wrote:

> That is peculiar.  Is the msg->target a simple nickname like "foobar", or 
> is it a formatted nickname, like "foobar at server#2", or something like 
> that?

It is a simple nickname.  There are only two users on the test server
I'm using -- my application and a normal user connected with the
standard SILC client.  I'm trying to get the client information for the
user connected with the SILC client.

> Unless there is some bug in sending the query I doubt the error comes from 
> server.  Rather, I think it comes from the client library when it parses 
> the server's reply.  Unfortunately, that would mean server has somehow 
> sent a badly formatted reply, which it shouldn't do.

After I sent my initial message I thought that perhaps it was a problem
with the Ubuntu package or a version mismatch, so I built the latest
versions of silc-client, silc-server, and silc-toolkit from source on a
Debian Sarge system and have the exact same problem.

I have built a (very ugly) main loop around some of the relevant
functions to demonstrate:

http://holmosapien.com/silcbot/

It connects to a SILC server running on 127.0.0.1:4400, joins a channel
called "#dev-ui", says "testing", then attempts to get the client
information for a user called 'user'.  This is the output:

SILC: Connecting to port 4400 of server 127.0.0.1
SILC: Public server key:

...

Looping for five seconds.

... (MOTD)

SILC: New nickname: test
SILC: Joined channel: #dev-ui
Sending public message.
Looping for five seconds.
Sending private message.
silc_get_clients: Error getting client information: Not enough parameters

In my SILC client, already in #dev-ui, I see this:

[11:51] *** test (dholm at localhost) has joined #dev-ui
[11:51] < test> testing
[11:51] *** test (dholm at localhost) has quit ()

So it can join and send public message, just no client lookups.

I'm sure I'm doing something very obviously wrong, but I can't find what
it is.

-- 
Dan