Summary:ASTERISK-18152: [patch] AMI AgentCalled CallerID is Agent extension/name
Reporter:Thomas Farnham (tom.farnham)Labels:
Date Opened:2011-07-19 10:18:18Date Closed:2011-11-10 16:36:15.000-0600
Versions: Frequency of
is related toASTERISK-16910 Newstate event contains CallerIDName/CallerIDNum of queue member
Environment:Ubuntu 10.04 LTSAttachments:( 0) app_queue.patch
( 1) cid.diff
Description:This issue references this previous ticket: ASTERISK-16910

The AgentCalled AMI CallerIDNum and CallerIDName content was changed due to changes in the NewState Event. CallerIDNum and CallerIDName should be the information coming from the Calling party, not the Agent. It looks like this was attempted to be fixed in the above mentioned issue by adding the ConnectedLineNum and ConnectedLineName fields. This is unneeded and breaks the AMI interface for existing applications as the CallerIDNum and CallerIDName should show the correct information coming from the queue. The proper solution is to provide the correct information in the CallerIDNum and CallerIDName.

I have a patch to solve this issue and will upload it shortly.

Note: I guess there could be some discussion on whether this is the right fix, but the management interface is depended upon by outside applications. Changing the purpose of something as basic as CallerIDNum/Name breaks things.
Comments:By: Thomas Farnham (tom.farnham) 2011-07-19 12:29:52.168-0500

Patch to Remove ConnectedLineNum and make CallerIDNum the correct information.

By: Grzegorz Garlewicz (garlew) 2011-09-28 04:04:35.232-0500

I think my patch is the way to go. The CallerID information is copied too late between channels and AgentCalled does not have proper callerids ready. Connected party ID is another thing. It probably could be removed because final id is not available at the moment AgentCalled is generated and there are no events to update it.
The patch is against 1.8.7

By: Grzegorz Garlewicz (garlew) 2011-09-28 04:05:51.095-0500

Also this should be marked as regression

By: Paul Belanger (pabelanger) 2011-10-12 11:45:00.607-0500

A regression since when?

By: Grzegorz Garlewicz (garlew) 2011-10-12 11:54:13.507-0500

Since 1.6.2 for sure. But as I can see it's already marked as such - just does not have [regression] in subject