CiviCRM Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for administrators and users of the CiviCRM Constituent Relationship Management software. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
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.
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.
Looking at the code this was implemented in svn days & it's just a case of removing code & adding a unit test
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)
I came across this today and am also a +1 for B. I think the Bs have it.
