When you create an extension the Internal Caller ID Name field is propagated by the first and last name.. if a DID is assigned the Internal Caller ID Name is used to propagated with the Description field if the route.
PROBLEM / BUG
when the Internal Caller ID Name is updated in the extension its NOT updating in the routes Description, as users move or more so if a DID is assigned it a different the route then displays the wrong information.
George
it should be labeled
it should be labeled something so you know what extension it is assigned to, with the use of DID's as extensions I don't know that it shouldn't be available in the user extension BUT I do agree with your point.. My point is if its going to be read from something like Internal Caller ID Name when that field should be updated when the field is updated. It might be better to readthe extension number instead.. But it would still need to me updated..
if you want to talk about something thats really screwed up, how about Administrators.. you sell a customer (Re-seller) a package and they have lets say 5 of everything, ext, mail box, etc.. now that customer is managing 5 Tenants, "his customers" so you set him up with an account that has access to those tenants. Only you have to give Can create Tenants and tenant administrators, if you don't he has to have a log in for each customer OUCH!!.
He can not only create but modify or delete tenants (only the ones he has access to) best hope he's honest because we could set unlimited for any and all his tenants..
A few extra click never bothered me.. unless it should have to be in the first place..
George
IMHO it should just say 'Direct dial to ext #' and not bother with a name at all. A user should own an extension but never a route. The problem I see with updating is lets say you gave someone permission to update extensions but you specifically said they cannot update inbound routes, if the edit users object has to call the inbound routes object you've just created an end-run around your permissions or worse broke them. I see the same problem in letting someone assign DID right inside the edit_user area. What if I don't want the end user to be able to create inbound routes (or for that matter, what if the client doesn't want a specific employee level admin to be able to do it), how do I stop him if he's allowed to edit users and create them there? Personally I preferred it when someone had to go into inbound routes and create it there instead of this 'shortcut'. Its a whole 2 extra steps and has a more definable permission boundary. Looking for overlapping and overextended permissions is hacking/exploiting 101.
It never ceases to amaze me how people can call 2 min of mouse strokes and keyboard pressing 'extra work'. I once took feedback on a UI and people literally complained that a button was at the top of the window instead of the bottom and they'd have to do all this 'extra work' to move the mouse up there. Now if this was some repetitive motion concern with 500 transactions a day .. maybe there would be a point. This was maybe 5 times a day tops. Some people need to do a days worth of hard labor to re-set their perspective on what is work. :-)