[asterisk-dev] [Code Review]: testing CDR(accountcode) being carried over into local channels

[Terry Wilson]

> On Feb. 23, 2012, 1:18 p.m., jrose wrote:
> > I'm not sure I believe you are having the problem you think you are having.  In my experience with CDRs, the actual order of cdrs in scenrios like this when they are concluded/written at essentially the same time is actually purely a matter of pseudo-random timing and you really can't predict any particular order.  You definitely need to have more than one sample for each case.
> 
> jrose wrote:
>     *You definitely need to have more than one sample for each case meaning you can't make the conclusion that one version of Asterisk is just doing things out of order without replicating this result a bunch of times without variance.
>     
>     As for the account code of the local channel, I ran into that problem too while I was working on CDR tests a while back.
> 
> wdoekes wrote:
>     Well.. I don't mind the out-of-orderness, so I'm not calling that a problem. This is just a "problem" for add_expectation(). I can work around that if no order is guaranteed.
>     
>     Please focus on the real problem: the missing accountcode.

We've closed issues before because modifying CDRs after the bridge was broken didn't work. But, it looks like they still work when set in the hangup extension. So it might be worth looking at whether or not we can fix the case of setting out of the h extension after the bridge is broken as well. But, I *hate* messing with CDR code.


- Terry


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1765/#review5613
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Feb. 22, 2012, 4:16 p.m., wdoekes wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1765/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 22, 2012, 4:16 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Asterisk Developers.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> There's a change in the CDRs between 1.6.2 and 1.8 with regards to the CDR(accountcode).
> 
> I created an example:
> 
> exten => 1,1,Set(CDR(accountcode)=initial)
> exten => 1,n,Dial(Local/2 at default)
> exten => 2,1,Dial(Local/3 at default)
> exten => 3,1,Set(CDR(accountcode)=third)
> 
> Master.csv of 1.6.2:
> 
> "third","","3","default","","Local/3 at default-ABCD;2","","Hangup","","2012-02-22 00:00:00","2012-02-22 00:00:00","2012-02-22 00:00:00",0,0,"ANSWERED","DOCUMENTATION","1329946580.5",""
> "initial","","2","default","","Local/2 at default-ABCD;2","Local/3 at default-ABCD;1","Dial","Local/3 at default","2012-02-22 00:00:00","2012-02-22 00:00:00","2012-02-22 00:00:00",0,0,"ANSWERED","DOCUMENTATION","1329946580.3",""
> "initial","","1","default","","Local/1 at default-ABCD;2","Local/2 at default-ABCD;1","Dial","Local/2 at default","2012-02-22 00:00:00","2012-02-22 00:00:00","2012-02-22 00:00:00",0,0,"ANSWERED","DOCUMENTATION","1329946580.1",""
> "","","1","default","","Local/1 at default-ABCD;1","","Echo","","2012-02-22 00:00:00","2012-02-22 00:00:00","2012-02-22 00:00:00",0,0,"ANSWERED","DOCUMENTATION","1329946580.0",""
> 
> .. seems logically ordered.
> 
> Master.csv of 1.8:
> 
> "","","2","default","","Local/2 at default-ABCD;2","Local/3 at default-ABCD;1","Dial","Local/3 at default","2012-02-22 00:00:00","2012-02-22 00:00:00","2012-02-22 00:00:00",0,0,"ANSWERED","DOCUMENTATION","1329946580.3",""
> "third","","3","default","","Local/3 at default-ABCD;2","","Hangup","","2012-02-22 00:00:00","2012-02-22 00:00:00","2012-02-22 00:00:00",0,0,"ANSWERED","DOCUMENTATION","1329946580.5",""
> "initial","","1","default","","Local/1 at default-ABCD;2","Local/2 at default-ABCD;1","Dial","Local/2 at default","2012-02-22 00:00:00","2012-02-22 00:00:00","2012-02-22 00:00:00",0,0,"ANSWERED","DOCUMENTATION","1329946580.1",""
> "","","1","default","","Local/1 at default-ABCD;1","","Echo","","2012-02-22 00:00:00","2012-02-22 00:00:00","2012-02-22 00:00:00",0,0,"ANSWERED","DOCUMENTATION","1329946580.0",""
> 
> .. has disorder where the first record should be second, and I'm missing the CDR(accountcode) in said record.
> 
> I don't know if CSV ordering is important (although the CDR tests' add_expectation() seems to imply they are fixed), but not having the CDR(accountcode) propagated to the Local channels is an undesirable change.
> 
> 
> This addresses bug ASTERISK-19384.
>     https://issues.asterisk.org/jira/browse/ASTERISK-19384
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   /asterisk/trunk/tests/cdr/cdr_accountcode/configs/ast1/cdr.conf PRE-CREATION 
>   /asterisk/trunk/tests/cdr/cdr_accountcode/configs/ast1/extensions.conf PRE-CREATION 
>   /asterisk/trunk/tests/cdr/cdr_accountcode/run-test PRE-CREATION 
>   /asterisk/trunk/tests/cdr/cdr_accountcode/test-config.yaml PRE-CREATION 
>   /asterisk/trunk/tests/cdr/tests.yaml 3036 
> 
> Diff: https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1765/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> See above.
> 
> Can someone confirm that the CSV of 1.6.2 is the "correct" one?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> wdoekes
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20120223/133b7d7a/attachment-0001.htm>