As I was testing this on my side I created the rule with no options then
went back in and changed them after. I did this without thinking because
I always do this due to what I thought were bugs in the past. More of a
reflex than thinking about it. Completely forgot about it - at least
consciously. Good to know it's actually a documented bug though.


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott
Lawrence
Sent: January-15-10 1:18 PM
To: Tony Graziano
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] User Forwarding

On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:10 -0500, Tony Graziano wrote:
> I got it working. The issue was the job to create the auto attendant
> failed. 
> 
> 
> File replication: autoattendants.xml>failed.
> 
> 
> I had to delete and start over. It didn't like the fact that I defined
> options, etc., before hitting apply the first time in order to create.

It's actually a special case of an existing bug... if you don't fill in
all the boxes when defining an auto-attendant, it creates an invalid xml
configuration file, and the validation check prevents the replication.
The error reporting is (as you discovered) terrible.

I don't remember the number, but it's there somewhere...



_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list [email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users
Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users
sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list [email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users
Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users
sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/

Reply via email to