[asterisk-dev] [Code Review] ConfbridgeActionExec AMI Command

[Joshua Colp]

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1902/#review6195
-----------------------------------------------------------



/trunk/include/asterisk/bridging.h
<https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1902/#comment11356>

    I'm not a huge fan of calling this 'deferds'. Perhaps 'deferred' instead?



/trunk/include/asterisk/bridging.h
<https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1902/#comment11360>

    I would prefer that if optional data is passed that a destructor be required, doing so forces reinforces that the ownership is with the bridge. (Or if it shouldn't be with the bridge that a reference counted object is used).



/trunk/main/bridging.c
<https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1902/#comment11355>

    You can actually just use AST_LIST_REMOVE_HEAD here as it returns the item removed.



/trunk/main/bridging.c
<https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1902/#comment11359>

    Is it actually possible for us to go into a deferred execution state without any deferred items? Reading the code it doesn't seem like it is possible.



/trunk/main/bridging.c
<https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1902/#comment11357>

    You can turn this into a while loop using AST_LIST_REMOVE_HEAD.



/trunk/main/bridging.c
<https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1902/#comment11358>

    Use find_bridge_channel


- Joshua


On May 5, 2012, 11:50 p.m., Matt Jordan wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1902/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 5, 2012, 11:50 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Asterisk Developers and Joshua Colp.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> Currently, most actions that are executed upon a channel in a conference (increasing/decreasing listening volume, playing back a sound on a channel, etc.) are handled via DTMF menus associated with a user profile.  While this suffices for scenarios where a user initiates an action upon themselves, it does not account for scenarios where a third party application wants to interact with the channels in a ConfBridge.  While there are a handful of AMI commands that allow for external interaction with the channels in the conference, they are currently limited to a subset of the defined actions.
> 
> Rather then add individual AMI commands for each confbridge action, this patch adds a single new AMI command for ConfBridge, ConfbridgeActionExec.  The command lets you execute any of the ConfBridge actions on a channel in the conference.
> 
> In order to facilitate this, a new mechanism has been added to the bridging layer to allow for a callback function to be executed at the next convenient moment on a bridged channel's thread.  This lets a user of the bridging layer defer execution of some function until such a time that the bridging layer determines that it is safe to execute that action on the channel's thread.
> 
> Example Usage:
> 
> Action: ConfbridgeActionExec
> Conference: 1
> Channel: Local/blah at foo
> Actions: increase_listening_volume,playback(tt-monkeys)
> 
> This would playback monkeys to the offending channel.  Very loudly.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   /trunk/CHANGES 364579 
>   /trunk/apps/app_confbridge.c 364788 
>   /trunk/main/bridging.c 364579 
>   /trunk/apps/confbridge/conf_config_parser.c 364579 
>   /trunk/apps/confbridge/include/confbridge.h 364579 
>   /trunk/include/asterisk/bridging.h 364579 
> 
> Diff: https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1902/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Initial testing using a test in the Asterisk Test Suite verified proper behavior of the AMI command.  The channel was properly suspended from the bridging layer, the playback confbridge action was executed, and the channel was placed back into the bridging layer.  All of this was similar to what would occur if the same action was triggered using a DTMF menu.
> 
> Note that a test case is being written to handle the various actions, but will be posted under a separate review.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Matt
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20120511/ab398fff/attachment-0001.htm>