[asterisk-bugs] [Asterisk 0012451]: join empty categories are not the same as leavewhenempty ones, joinempty probably wrong

[noreply at bugs.digium.com]

A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=12451 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                davidw
Assigned To:                Corydon76
====================================================================== 
Project:                    Asterisk
Issue ID:                   12451
Category:                   Applications/app_queue
Reproducibility:            always
Severity:                   minor
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     feedback
Asterisk Version:           SVN 
SVN Branch (only for SVN checkouts, not tarball releases):  1.4  
SVN Revision (number only!): 114060 
Disclaimer on File?:        N/A 
Request Review:              
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             04-15-2008 11:14 CDT
Last Modified:              05-30-2008 17:27 CDT
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    join empty categories are not the same as
leavewhenempty ones, joinempty probably wrong
Description: 
Once one accounts for joinempty and leavewhenempty sort of having opposite
logical senses, one cannot match the effects of the values of these two
variables one for one.

joinempty = no matches leavewhenempty = yes

joinempty = yes matches leavewhenempty = no

However, joinempty = strict drops only for QUEUE_NO_REACHABLE_MEMBERS,
but

leavewhenempty = strict drops for both QUEUE_NO_MEMBERS and
QUEUE_NO_REACHABLE_MEMBERS.

====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 davidw - 05-30-08 17:27  
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
We explicitly tested this with the old code and it did not cause the
queuing to be rejected.  In fact, this whole issue first arose because one
of our people tried to do an unnecessary workaround for queuing being
rejected on join when joinempty was default and all queues were paused.

It's 23:26 here, so I'm not going to trace the code now to make a detailed
case, but I seem to remember that paused members are treated as though they
didn't exist  at all, rather than that they existed but were unavailable.

Actually, busy is wrong as well.  Busy members are OK.  The choice is
between not existent, which includes paused, and unavailable, which
includes logged out.  I will fix my original re-opening comment. 

Issue History 
Date Modified   Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
05-30-08 17:27  davidw         Note Added: 0087593                          
======================================================================