10-21-2009 01:09 PM
I've been running some tests on the ACT! Demo Database and I'm finding curruption on the phone numbers i.e. The formatted phone number is different from the Raw Phone number. For example, you'll have a formatted phone number as (888)892-09 and the raw phone number is 888 892 09243. In some cases, the formatted phone number is (888)892-09 and the unformatted phone number is 1888892 09.
There are a couple of questions:
1- How does ACT! generate the formatted phone number (it appears that it does not).
2- Should the country code be included on the raw phone number
3- What is the relationship (if any) between the ACT! Formatted and Unformatted numbers. It appears that there is none that that each number is independent.
I am finding quite a substantial amount of corruption of the phone numbers on ACT! databases, including the Demo Database. In some cases, the ACT! phone numbers suffix column does not exist. What's the deal here? I thought the suffix was created everytime you create a phone number field?
Thanx in advance.
10-22-2009 06:44 AM
Are you looking in TBL_PHONE?
Here's some things I found in relation to your questions:
1. The two tables TBL_PHONE and TBL_PHONEMASK are joined to format the number in the program
2. The country code *could* be in the raw phone number, look in TBL_PHONE.NUMBERVALUE. the issue you might be having with this field is that although it is a phone number field, in reality it's just a nvarchar, and can contain anything you want it to - numbers, text, punctuation, etc
3. regarding this, my guess is there is a stored procedure on the back end that attempts to take the raw value, apply formatting, and populate this table. By looking at the data you can see that it does not always work. Again, it's a nvarchar field. (this is just a guess)
So, maybe your corruption is just the fact that these fields can take any character at all...
10-22-2009 09:39 AM
Corruption, as I see it, is when you have an Empty Unformatted Phone Number field and a populated Formatted Phone Number field. How the heck can the ACT! database allow that! Logically, the Formatted Phone number should be the result of the application of the mask on the unformatted phone number. Well, that is not the case. The formatted and unformatted phone numbers are independent. Anything could be in either.
My original question is: What is the correllation between the formatted and unformatted phone fields and why are there instances where these fields are numerically different and why does ACT! allow that to happen.