Cisco Support Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
New Member

Restriction Table bug

UM 3.15

I am experiencing the following bug:CSCdy61150.

After reading the details I am not clear as to the resolution.

The work around states:

"None. Restriction tables still function"

Does this statement mean that what one sees on the SA is not reflecting the order in which the restrictions are applied? That does not seem to be case for us. And the only solution is to upgrade?


Sabas Chois

Cisco Employee

Re: Restriction Table bug

I believe the issue is the order is only incorrect on the display - the actual order of the rules in the back end table is correct - so if you put the rules in the order in which you want (even if there are more than 11 of them) and then press save, it's written through to the back end correctly and enforced correctly - however if you refresh the view the SA will then show them in the wrong order.

The problem is the alias field goes from 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 etc... and the default sort order coming out of SQL sorts by the alias field in alphabetical order so they're shown in 0,1,10,12,3,4,5...

It's awkward but the resolution notes are correct. You have to remember that when making any changes to force the order you see to be correct before you save.

New Member

Re: Restriction Table bug

Another issue showed up as part of this bug, All the entries are showing as NO. As in NOT allow. Is this also a display issue? Based on your description, it doesn't appear that way.

CreatePlease to create content