We have a problem (on multiple installs)
Call comes in via Zap channel. (To extention 100)
Call is blind transfered to extention (100 to 123)
the user making the transfer wants to pull the call back so issues a directed pickup (*8123)
this call failes.
It appears from the logs and looking at the pickup functions code that a blind transfer has no context so the pickup function can not call the callid properly.
any ideas ?
Normall directed pickup works this appears to only fail on calls that are blind transfered
I am in the same boat. Found a solution for this?
Isn’t directed pick-up ** and call group pick-up is *8?
** and *8 are the same. just 2 common configurations of the same thing. I have isolated exactly what code is not working in the back end and a defect has been raised. A blind xfer has no context. the code for the directed pickep needs to interact with [email protected] to be able to work.
Unless you’ve changed from the defaults…
*8 is Group Call Pickup
** is the prefix for directed call pickup.
*8 is used by itself…no ext. number appended. The phone picking up must be in the same call pickup group as the phone to be picked up.
*8 and ** are two entirely two different animals.
i conceed the point on that but still waiting for a fix.
Just to let you know…
I can pick up a directed call pickup “**NNNN” and a “*8” group call pickup…
If all you are going to do is assume that saying something here will make it get fixed, it will not happen.
The procedure for reporting a Bug is to look along the left hand side and select Development Site, then select Report Bug. You will be taken to a Bug reporting Page where you will need to enter all the information and submit it.
Along with that you will need to provide a lot more detail then you have provided here. Versions of software running, A call trace showing the issue, etc… Since I see no reference to a ticket number I’m assuming it has not yet been reported the proper way.
I did all of this several weeks ago thanks and the defect is being looked at. But thanks for your help. my case was 2509 closed as it was a duplicate of 2510,
I see. It was a dup of #2510 which was resolved back on June 14th and addressed with r6009, r6010 and r6011code updates which have all been rolled out. So the problem has been addressed and fixed in the 2.5 branch.