> Hi Kyriacos,
>
> Followed your suggestions and tested step by step:
>
> 1. **Trunk routing confirmed:** WhatsApp trunk "Helpline" default route → Queue "805 WhatsApp" (correct, verified in the UI).
> 2. **Queue agents:** Found the queue had only one member — a generic shared "Helpline" user account, no real staff extension. Added a real agent extension, saved, tested again with a foreign number — still no chat appears.
> 3. **Queue capacity:** "Max callers in queue" was set to 0. Changed it to 20, tested again — still nothing.
>
> In all cases the message is still received and logged (visible with full content under Reports → Messages / Chat Log), but never surfaces as a visible chat under the Chat menu, and produces zero entries anywhere in the Event Log — exactly the same silent behavior as before, regardless of trunk config, queue membership, or queue capacity.
>
> At this point we've tested every routing/config variable we can find on our side. Would appreciate any further ideas — otherwise this really looks like it needs a developer-level look.
>
> Best, Roland
>
> Followed your suggestions and tested step by step:
>
> 1. **Trunk routing confirmed:** WhatsApp trunk "Helpline" default route → Queue "805 WhatsApp" (correct, verified in the UI).
> 2. **Queue agents:** Found the queue had only one member — a generic shared "Helpline" user account, no real staff extension. Added a real agent extension, saved, tested again with a foreign number — still no chat appears.
> 3. **Queue capacity:** "Max callers in queue" was set to 0. Changed it to 20, tested again — still nothing.
>
> In all cases the message is still received and logged (visible with full content under Reports → Messages / Chat Log), but never surfaces as a visible chat under the Chat menu, and produces zero entries anywhere in the Event Log — exactly the same silent behavior as before, regardless of trunk config, queue membership, or queue capacity.
>
> At this point we've tested every routing/config variable we can find on our side. Would appreciate any further ideas — otherwise this really looks like it needs a developer-level look.
>
> Best, Roland
