[asterisk-dev] CDR issues - Can someone sanity check them?

[Steve Davies]

On 5 January 2012 14:38, Terry Wilson <twilson at digium.com> wrote:
>> I agree with your goal, but I think the real sticking point is that
>> there aren't any written-down rules to follow, and the behavior has
>> changed between major releases so people have adjusted their systems
>> to
>> accommodate those changes.
>>
>> Certainly if someone wanted to *write* a set of rules and get
>> community
>> consensus on them that would be fantastic, but that's no small task.
>
> I'm not even sure I agree with the goal. *Every* time we touch CDRs we
> seem to break something for someone. It is impossible to get consensus
> from the community on this kind of thing because there are probably
> (10s or 100s of?) thousands of users who will never know about the change
> until after the fact. I'd rather just let CDRs be historically consistent and
> "not optimal" and push people to use CEL. We've lost *months* of people's
> time to "fixing CDRs" with change after change being reverted (or even worse
> in some of the cases, not reverted).
>

I had hoped to avoid that response by pointing out that where the
currently generated CDR data is clearly correct, it would remain
untouched. The cases that need fixing are mostly lost and duplicated
data or blatantly incorrect data (negative billsecs is quite possible
with the current code!)

Regardless, can someone CDR-savvy review the 2 issues mentioned in the
OP as they are hopefully fixes that do not require open-heart CDR
surgery. Between the 2 of them, they fix:

ASTERISK-17826
- At least one case where 2 CDRs are lost on a call
- At least one case where an answered call is logged as unanswered

ASTERISK-19164
- A method of recording a negative billsec value.

Also related is ASTERISK-18733

Thanks,
Steve