| Summary: | ASTERISK-06747: Added new option 'n' to Page() app to keep the Page from including the caller. | ||
| Reporter: | Joe Cracchiolo (jjcinaz) | Labels: | |
| Date Opened: | 2006-04-10 13:16:08 | Date Closed: | 2006-04-11 16:52:05 |
| Priority: | Major | Regression? | No |
| Status: | Closed/Complete | Components: | Applications/app_page |
| Versions: | Frequency of Occurrence | ||
| Related Issues: | |||
| Environment: | Attachments: | ( 0) app_page_changes.patch | |
| Description: | The new option 'n' will cause the Page app to NOT dial the originating device/channel. For example, if SIP/7001 dials *31 with the following in the dialplan: exten => *31,1,Page(SIP/7001&SIP/7002&SIP/7003/&SIP/7004&SIP/7005) The Page app will normally attempt to call SIP/7001. Since the caller is SIP/7001, this doesn't make sense and the user initiating the page is rather confused by the new call appearing on call waiting. The new option 'n' will fix this: exten => *31,1,Page(SIP/7001&SIP/7002&SIP/7003/&SIP/7004&SIP/7005|n) Now SIP/7002 ... SIP/7005 will be called, but SIP/7001 will not because it's the originating device. SIP/7001 will still be in the Meetme room. | ||
| Comments: | By: Tilghman Lesher (tilghman) 2006-04-11 00:12:39 Can you think of any reason why we'd ever want to include the caller in a Page? What I'm thinking is that this shouldn't be an option -- it should be part of the default action. By: Tilghman Lesher (tilghman) 2006-04-11 00:15:34 Also, we don't allow C++-style comments in the code. Please use C-style comments only. By: Kevin P. Fleming (kpfleming) 2006-04-11 16:52:05 This behavior certainly violates the principle of least surprise, so I'm classifying it as a bug. I've fixed it in 1.2 and trunk, although using a simpler and more efficient algorithm. Thanks! | ||