[asterisk-bugs] [Asterisk 0011382]: Dial option G does not handle labels under some conditions

[noreply at bugs.digium.com]

email_notification_title_for_status_bug_ready_for_testing 
====================================================================== 
http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=11382 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                jon
Assigned To:                
====================================================================== 
Project:                    Asterisk
Issue ID:                   11382
Category:                   Applications/app_dial
Reproducibility:            always
Severity:                   minor
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     ready for testing
Asterisk Version:            1.4.13  
SVN Branch (only for SVN checkouts, not tarball releases): N/A  
SVN Revision (number only!):  
Disclaimer on File?:        N/A 
Request Review:              
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             11-26-2007 17:35 CST
Last Modified:              11-27-2007 13:42 CST
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    Dial option G does not handle labels under some
conditions
Description: 
The G option is able to process the priority at G(label) but not
G(label)+1. Using G(s^label) seems to work fine so I'm using that as a
workaround.
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 putnopvut - 11-27-07 13:42  
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
The patch I have uploaded makes sense to me.

It seems redundant and wasteful to call ast_parseable_goto on both the
chan and peer channels. Call it a single time to figure out where to send
chan. Then since peer will always be sent to the same extension and
context, but one priority higher, just copy that information from chan to
peer and continue. It works for the sample given in the "Additional
Information" section, but I want some confirmation that this works as
expected before I commit to 1.4 

Issue History 
Date Modified   Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
11-27-07 13:42  putnopvut      Note Added: 0074426                          
11-27-07 13:42  putnopvut      Status                   new => ready for testing
======================================================================