Same extension number between tenants

[leviticus]

So, we're using a multitenant setup and in the course of testing/exploring I noticed an issue that begs two questions:

 

1. Is there an issue creating extensions with the same number (and even name) between tenants?

2. Is there a bug in the web interface when renumbering extensions?

 

Basically, what I'm seeing is that I can CREATE the same extension number between multiple tenants, but if I renumber an extension the same as an extension in another client, I receive the error: "Error: At least one of the names exists. The names have not been changed"

 

NOTE: I am ONLY changing the 'Account Number(s):' field, but is conceivable that in our client pool we will have extensions that share the same name and number ('200:Front Desk' between two tenants for instance.)

 

An example:

1. <tenant1> has extension 200, 201, 202

2. I create new tenant <tenant2> and add extension 200 – Snom One doesn’t complain, creates extension.

3. I go back over to <tenant1>, renumber 200 to some other arbitrary extension (let's say one of the defaults: 41)

4. I then try to renumber that same extension BACK to 200 – no go; it complains that the name is in use (above error)

5. I delete the extension (200) in <tenant2>, go back to <tenant1> and I am then able to rename the extension 41 back to 200.

 

It's not like renumbering extensions is going to be terribly common for us, but not being able to on the off-hand occasion is going to be annoying. More importantly, I'm curious if there are any issues with having extensions numbered the same between two tenants?

 

Thoughts?

[Guest kevin]

There is no issue with creating extensions with the same numbers within the system. I am not sure of that issue you hit. Do you have any alias's in your domains? Is localhost still one of the domain names? If you can easily reproduce it try cranking up the log level to 9 and see if there is anything in there that we can use. What version are you running and we can try to reproduce it here if it is on a recent build and it is easily reproducible.

[leviticus]

I have no problem reproducing it. I just have to go into a tenant and try to re-number an existing extension to an extension number that exists in any other tenant.

 

Is having 'localhost' as a domain alias a faux pas? Because we still do - I suppose I thought it was just a necessary evil?

 

Here's the level 9 log-file (FQDNs redacted - <FQDN1>=original/localhost alias). I cleared the log just before attempting the re-number, and this was all that was posted in the log:

 

[8] 2012/06/04 23:35:48: Last message repeated 3 times

[9] 2012/06/04 23:35:48: 1(3): The alias name <FQDN1>, domain name <FQDN1>

[9] 2012/06/04 23:35:48: 2(4): The alias name localhost, domain name <FQDN1>

[9] 2012/06/04 23:35:48: 2(6): The alias name <FQDN2>, domain name <FQDN2>

[9] 2012/06/04 23:35:48: 3(9): The alias name <FQDN3>, domain name <FQDN3>

[8] 2012/06/04 23:36:00: Packet authenticated by transport layer

[0] 2012/06/04 23:36:02: Create User: administrator from <my remote IP> is trying to create extensions

[5] 2012/06/04 23:36:02: Create User: The name 43 is already in use

[8] 2012/06/04 23:36:03: Packet authenticated by transport layer

 

 

Current build info: Version: 4.5.0.1075 Delta Aurigids (CentOS64)

 

Thanks for your help!

[Vodia PBX]

Remember that the PBX uses HTTP sessions with variables inside the PBX, not the browser. Can you reproduce the problem if tenant 1 is using one web browser/computer and tenant 2 is using another one? If those changes are made within the same session, you must make sure to switch between the tenants by going to admin/domains to switch the domain.

[pbx support]

I believe there was an issue in that version either renaming or adding aliases. It has been fixed in the next version.