Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I've noticed that recently, the line name that shows up on provisioned phones is no longer the device's name. It's now the user's First and Last name.

For example, previously if I had a device named "201 Ricks Home Phone" and it was assigned to me, Rick Guyton, the phone would display "201 Ricks Home Phone" as the line name.

Now, it just lists "Rick Guyton" as the line name.

It would be better, I think if it either went back to the device name OR used the user's primary extension number then first and last name. So, the phone would read "201 Rick Guyton"

Guest David
Posted

I like the idea @Rick Guyton suggested, with a slight variance:

{{user.presence_id}} {{user.first_name}}

I've always preferred that formatting with just the first name due to limited display length on some phone screens.

I'll pass this feedback over to our Provisioning team. Thank you for sharing your input!

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, David said:

I like the idea @Rick Guyton suggested, with a slight variance:


{{user.presence_id}} {{user.first_name}}

I've always preferred that formatting with just the first name due to limited display length on some phone screens.

I'll pass this feedback over to our Provisioning team. Thank you for sharing your input!

Might I suggest taking a poll or something? I would not personally care for this. There's a lot of Joe, John, Mary and Lindas out there.

Edited by Rick Guyton (see edit history)
Posted

Any update on this? I just had to change the name of 50 some odd devices in one of my accounts. And while that was an annoying amount of manual work to have to do, I now have to update each of their provisioning profiles now too and that takes even longer... Is there a work around at all aside from manually changing each??

  • Administrators
Posted

We're meeting about this today. Should have an idea of what next steps are then. Sorry for the disruption; hopefully things will be sorted out and a proper announcement can be sent around all this.

Posted
10 minutes ago, mc_ said:

We're meeting about this today. Should have an idea of what next steps are then. Sorry for the disruption; hopefully things will be sorted out and a proper announcement can be sent around all this.

Thanks for the update @mc_!

Posted
12 minutes ago, mc_ said:

We're meeting about this today. Should have an idea of what next steps are then. Sorry for the disruption; hopefully things will be sorted out and a proper announcement can be sent around all this.

Thank you!

  • Administrators
Posted

Consensus is to revert back to the pre-existing functionality and let you guys continue to operate as you did before this change. Look for PRs for 4.3 and master in the next day or two.

Posted
2 hours ago, mc_ said:

Consensus is to revert back to the pre-existing functionality and let you guys continue to operate as you did before this change. Look for PRs for 4.3 and master in the next day or two.

Sorry, can you please clarify? What is PRs?

Does this mean it will be fixed in the next day or two and live in production?

Thank you!

  • Administrators
Posted

PR - pull request on the git repo. Once the PRs are opened and merged into the 4.3 and master (5.0) branches, new RPMs will be created containing the fix. We'll also likely hot-patch the platforms we manage to alleviate the issue.

Timing for the updates/hot-patches is unknown until the PRs are accepted and we see what the OPS workload is. But we'll update here when things are live on the various systems we manage.

Posted
58 minutes ago, mc_ said:

PR - pull request on the git repo. Once the PRs are opened and merged into the 4.3 and master (5.0) branches, new RPMs will be created containing the fix. We'll also likely hot-patch the platforms we manage to alleviate the issue.

Timing for the updates/hot-patches is unknown until the PRs are accepted and we see what the OPS workload is. But we'll update here when things are live on the various systems we manage.

Hmm okay, so TLDR how long until this fixed will be pushed to production for hosted?

Posted
2 hours ago, mc_ said:

PR - pull request on the git repo. Once the PRs are opened and merged into the 4.3 and master (5.0) branches, new RPMs will be created containing the fix. We'll also likely hot-patch the platforms we manage to alleviate the issue.

Timing for the updates/hot-patches is unknown until the PRs are accepted and we see what the OPS workload is. But we'll update here when things are live on the various systems we manage.

Do we have access to the provisioner git? I thought it was private.

  • Administrators
Posted

@Rick Guyton the change occurred in KAZOO, in how the data was sent to the provisioner service.

 

The PRs have been issued and merged. Hotpatches to hosted will be scheduled when OPS can do it; not sure on the timing.

×
×
  • Create New...