Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Commit 8e8cf80c authored by Richard Mudgett's avatar Richard Mudgett
Browse files

res_parking: Fix blind transfer dynamic lots creation.

Blind transfers to a recognized parking extension need to use the parker's
channel variable values to create the dynamic parking lot.  This is
because there is always only one parker while the parkee may actually be a
multi-party bridge.  A multi-party bridge can never supply the needed
channel variables to create the dynamic parking lot.  In the multi-party
bridge blind transfer scenario, the parker's CHANNEL(parkinglot) value and
channel variables are inherited by the local channel used to park the
bridge.

* In park_common_setup(), make use the parker instead of the parkee to
supply the dynamic parking lot channel variable values.  In all but one
case, the parkee is the same as the parker.  However, in the recognized
parking extension blind transfer scenario for a two party bridge they are
different channels.  For consistency, we need to use the parker channel.

* In park_local_transfer(), pass the CHANNEL(parkinglot) value to the
local channel when blind transferring a multi-party bridge to a recognized
parking extension.

* When a local channel starts a call, the Local;2 side needs to inherit
the CHANNEL(parkinglot) value from Local;1.

The DTMF one-touch parking case wasn't even trying to create dynamic
parking lots before it aborted the attempt.

* In parking_park_call(), add missing code to create a dynamic parking
lot.

A DTMF bridge hook is documented as returning -1 to remove the hook.
Though the hook caller is really coded to accept non-zero.  See the
ast_bridge_hook_callback typedef.

* In feature_park_call(), don't remove the DTMF one-touch parking hook
because of an error.

ASTERISK-24605 #close
Reported by:  Philip Correia
Patches:
      call_park.patch (license #6672) patch uploaded by Philip Correia

Change-Id: I221d3a8fcc181877a1158d17004474d35d8016c9
parent 1555cf89
No related branches found
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
Loading
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment