7

per the title, what do others think is the better behaviour

a/ ignore Location Type for Email, Phone, but use Location Type for Address (status quo)

b/ change so Location Type is never taken in to consideration (ie Address would be treated same as Email, Phone)

c/ change so Email/Phone also have Location Type taken in to consideration when applying matching rules.

Reason for asking is we got caught out using a rule with postcode. We expected the postcode to be location agnostic. Seems it isn't.

5

B please. This has been a point of frustration when importing. Make the location type simply a label without deduping consideration.

I thought it always takes into account location type.

| improve this answer | |
1

Looking at the code this was implemented in svn days & it's just a case of removing code & adding a unit test

https://github.com/civicrm/civicrm-core/blob/2cbe6e87cbf0c1ce7a2f89c2000c472b58e66146/CRM/Dedupe/Finder.php#L266-L298

Relevant tickets: https://issues.civicrm.org/jira/browse/CRM-17564 https://issues.civicrm.org/jira/browse/CRM-5026 https://issues.civicrm.org/jira/browse/CRM-3902

From the code it looks like this is used when matching on creating a contact but not on finding duplicate contacts from the finder screen.

I'm +1 on B but would want to see more people weigh in (esp as I'm not a heavy user of this functionality as we import and then dedupe for historical reasons - which by-passes this)

| improve this answer | |
1

I came across this today and am also a +1 for B. I think the Bs have it.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.