QueueMetrics forum

QueueMetrics => Realtime Live => Topic started by: cgonzalez on July 12, 2007, 17:35:59

Title: Wrong identification of call
Post by: cgonzalez on July 12, 2007, 17:35:59
I'm using asterisk version 1.4.6 and testing queuemetrics 1.4.0.

For some reason some calls appear as waiting while they really are handled by an agent in that moment.  There appear also some ghost calls that remains in waiting state but doesn't exist on asterisk.

Can someone give me some help about this?  We have test using the queue_log file and using queue info from mysql, the same thing happends.


Title: Re: Wrong identification of call
Post by: cgonzalez on July 20, 2007, 01:41:46
I identify the problem, is on the CONNECT line for some reasone when the field that goes next to the CONNECT message equals 0, queuemetrics show me that the call is waiting, when actually it had been transfer.

Wrong display
1184887482|1184887480.56|401|Agent/526|CONNECT|0|1184887482.57

Good display
1184887625|1184887622.58|401|Agent/519|CONNECT|1|1184887624.59

what this field means?
Title: Re: Wrong identification of call
Post by: cgonzalez on July 20, 2007, 15:14:21
Here is the complete stream

1184887482|1184887480.56|401|NONE|ENTERQUEUE||
1184887482|1184887480.56|401|Agent/526|CONNECT|0|1184887482.57

I try to make a workaround and modify just for test the app_queue.c, and put a fix 1 into the waittime field, and now seems to work.  But for final use I need to have this field with the real value.

Any suggestions?
Title: Re: Wrong identification of call
Post by: QueueMetrics on July 24, 2007, 16:45:16
It's definitely a bug and we will address it for 1.4.1.
Thanks for pointing that out.

For your reference, this is bug #169.
Title: Re: Wrong identification of call
Post by: QueueMetrics on July 29, 2007, 11:32:25
It was in fact a subtle bug, affecting only the realtime page. Luckily calls with wait time=0 are very rare, so you have been the first to spot it. Anyway the bug #169 is solved, and version 1.4.1 (to be released in a couple of weeks) is correct.
Thanks for pointing that out!