Unexpected behavior of CommandAction("core show channels");
See original GitHub issueI’m using this code to get actual channels:
CommandResponse response = manager.SendAction(new CommandAction("core show channels concise")) as CommandResponse;
Usually the last line of the response I get “--END COMMAND--
”, but sometimes this does not happen. How can I protect myself from error when the command response is received not fully?
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 7 years ago
- Comments:9
Top Results From Across the Web
Asterisk core show channels verbose
The command shows you all channels that are in progress in Asterisk, including each leg of a call. There is no option to...
Read more >Seagull Error Unexpected (no scenario found) call with ...
For this, I have the scenario file structure like the following. <traffic> <receive channel="channel-1"> <command name="MAR"> .... </receive> ...
Read more >[Asterisk] hangup a channel from bash - odd behavior
Here comes the command ""core show channels concise" which always provides the channel name in full, followed by '!' and some extra data...
Read more >Seagull - Core
Enabling and disabling controls; Behaviour when a control fails; Presence check; Parameter value check; Message order check. External data management.
Read more >NotificationListenerService
An optional activity intent action that shows additional settings for what notifications should be processed by this notification listener service.
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
Looking at the code before/after, it makes sense why this resolves it and why I was seeing the list populate after the fact. Plus I don’t see any issues with the changes that were done.
From a code test, I ran the patch against two 1000-set runs and I didn’t see the issue. Switching back to the current master I was able to get the issue right away.
I’d say it’s good, at least from my perspective. 👍
Can those with this issue please review the patch submitted to fix this. Feedback on pull request welcome.