[asterisk-users] CDR changes in 1.4.3?

[Scott Lykens]

On 4/27/07, Steve Murphy <murf at digium.com> wrote:

> I'm the guilty party. I've been trying to fix several CDR bugs,
> involving stuff like missing times, missing changes in state (like
> NO_ANSWER when the call was ANSWERED), etc.

A-HA! Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to progress as there have
been a few CDR quirks that were annoyances to me as well.

> The result is that several more cases are more accurate, but also, that
> rather uninteresting CDR's can be generated. In contemplating what could
> be done to get rid of some of these, I sometimes have to ask, "is this
> truly something we have to get rid of?"... In the meantime,
> uninteresting CDR's with NO_ANSWER and billsec=0, should be easy to
> filter out, right?

You're right, they can/will be easy to filter out, I'll update my
script that pulls CDR data for me to do it.

> I will, in the coming days, look at some of the extraneous CDR's that
> are generated, and see what I can do to get rid of them. It's not always
> that simple.
> If we ring a phone, for instance, and no-one answers it, is that truly,
> really, something that no-one will ever be, could ever be, interested
> in? (just a fer-instance).

I do think there is a potential desire for some people to have these
records. In my experience, however, unanswered calls are logged as
well even before 1.4.3. Perhaps it is related to my trunk
configuration. What is wholly uninteresting is, as you mentioned
above, billsec/duration = 0 calls terminating to "s" in each context
associated with the call and I'm not really sure what they could be
used for but I'm sure somebody could find something.

Perhaps a flag could be set to request regular, verbose, or very
verbose CDR? Regular could provide behavior similar to pre-1.4.3, and
verbose/very verbose could add more and more detail. Would it be
simple enough to identify which CDRs are trivial and only log them
when the verbosity is set higher?

I know, that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one who has to code it up. :)

> I welcome your input. Complain up a storm. I'll try my best to make you
> happy.

Thanks for the positive attitude. We do really appreciate the work you
guys are doing, even if it doesn't seem like it at times. :)

As I mentioned above, my only suggestion would be to identify CDRs
that are "informational" in nature and only log them when a flag is
set.

Thanks again.

sl