QCPASS missing in export calls/leads reports?

[dspaan]

I noticed when using the export calls report or export leads report i don't see the QCPASS or QCCANCEL status. Is this by design?

I only see QCFAIL

[williamconley]

Do those statuses actually exist? Under admin->system statuses

note that it is not required that a status exist to appear on a lead

PS: Your Vicidial Build is missing. Version is not quite the full story.

[dspaan]

You are right, only the QCFAIL exists under system statuses. But i don't remember adding/removing these so i guess this is a missing item in vicibox stock.

I added build to my signature. What does it mean exactly?
Also, at the bottom of the admin screen it says i have 2.14-695a and in the system settings it says i have 2.14b0.5. What's the difference between these?

[williamconley]

You are right, only the QCFAIL exists under system statuses. But i don't remember adding/removing these so i guess this is a missing item in vicibox stock.

Not missing. Simply not there. Add 'em if you want 'em. Otherwise they don't exist on purpose so they don't appear in places where you don't want them to.

I added build to my signature. What does it mean exactly?

Incremented each time The Vicidial Group pushes "Save" I'd imagine. Detailed "where'd this screw up" in their internal versioning package, whatever that is.

Also, at the bottom of the admin screen it says i have 2.14-695a and in the system settings it says i have 2.14b0.5. What's the difference between these?

No idea. I track SVN and the admin.php version with build and ignore the rest of it. But do note that each file has its own version number and build notes. Every shop that codes has their own internal method, this is theirs.

[dspaan]

Not missing. Simply not there. Add 'em if you want 'em. Otherwise they don't exist on purpose so they don't appear in places where you don't want them to.

Then why is QCFAIL there and under QC statuses you have three different QC statuses, that doesn't make sense. I also don't understand why statuses like INBND and WAITTO are non existing under system statuses.

[williamconley]

At some point it was determined to be necessary by someone, so it's there (or you added it at some point).

Remember that Every kind of call center throughout the world shares this same codebase and default setup. Activating every possible option for every feature would severely bog down the system to the detriment of the entire community.

For instance: Some reports run better with added indexes on some tables. But adding ALL indexes for ALL reports would slow down the database dramatically on enterprise-level systems with huge tables, thus those extra indexes are not added to default situations.

Back to your next question: INBND and WAITTO are selected by software/code and not by humans. Thus they are not in the human "selectable statuses" areas unless you choose to add them. Consider how many statuses there are now, and double that if ALL statuses that could possibly be used for any purpose are added to the system. Finding the basic statuses in an admin dropdown (where "human selectable" has no effect, since this is not the agent screen) and the simple act of modifying a status could become cumbersome. And I'm guessing about the amount. Could be triple, just an example of "not everything is active". Activate what you want to use.

[dspaan]

But the system statuses page is full of non selectable statuses (most of them in fact) that are rarely used. Then why not add these few that are also system statuses and can be used but are not documented and have to go to the forum to discover what they mean?

[williamconley]

the ones that are there have been determined to be necessary by someone (or someone actually paid for them to be present).

nobody has paid for "these few" to be included AND you overlooked that "these few" are not likely "few" completely. I strongly suspect that the admin dropdowns for statuses would become unusable if ALL statuses possible were included. Having to scroll through several pages of dropdown to change a status is not a viable alternative to a few special users having to add the status they personally want.

Considering how easy it is to create a status, that's my opinion. But I don't happen to be responsible for the codebase: When PoundTeam installs a server, we routinely customize the server in our special way as we see fit for most clients to use. Such as adding 50 phones, the DGG firewall, locking down some folders. If you want the system custom tailored for You, you'll have to do it. If you want it custom-tailed for ... everyone, that's impossible and more importantly it's cumbersome to prove that it's impossible.

If you disagree, consider adding a Vicidial Issue Tracker which includes the statuses you'd like to have added (and why). Who knows: You may get your wish.

But the only ways to be Sure is: Pay the Vicidial Group or Do it Yourself during the buildout.

[dspaan]

Yeah i know all this. I also have a template server for creating new ones that has phones, template users, template carrier, etc. I guess i'll add this to Mantis.

[williamconley]

Yeah i know all this. I also have a template server for creating new ones that has phones, template users, template carrier, etc. I guess i'll add this to Mantis.

if you already add phones and carriers, this is merely one extra line to run for statuses. hardly worth the effort to try to convince The Vicidial Group that these statuses are worthy of full-inclusion.

But it would be interesting to hear your response in a few months when they get to this item in the list.