Skip to Content

issue related to ID Origin of Contacts

Dear Experts,

I have a question regarding to Contact ID Origin:

We are creating an interaction Contact via FM : "CUAN_CE_INTERACTIONS_POS"

Like below:

ID_ORIGIN: "GIGYA",
ID: 123456789 ,
SMTP_ADDR: Chiara@Test10.com ,
EMAIL_OPTIN: X 

It will create this Contact for us also related Interaction:

ID_ORIGIN: "GIGYA"ID: 123456789

And it will create 3 Facet

Now imagine that we want to create another Interaction for this contact with Type of Email Address "Chiara@Test10.com" with mention FM

Since this Email Address is just assigned to one contact and there is facet for this contact with mention email, I expect to create me another Interaction with Email ID Origin for the same contact!
But It creates me another contact and this interaction will assigned to new contact

Could anyone help me to understand what can be the issue?

Thanks
Sepide

facet.png (35.3 kB)
interaction2.png (43.2 kB)
Add comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Get RSS Feed

5 Answers

  • May 06 at 03:17 PM

    Hi Sepide,

    Can you check the FM call, how you are creating the Interactions. The FM has an option to set mode of operation. by default it is should be set to D which means it will perform merge and match of contact, can you try to set the default mode to N and then execute the same scenario and see if any difference.

    Thanks

    Vineet

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • Hi Sepide,

      I am a little confused, your question states that the problem is that it is not merging the contacts but creating a new contact and assigning the interaction to it, and in the above reply you mentioned "we do not want to merge these contacts". The system is doing as you expect it to be? or am i missing the point.

      Can you please confirm the following.

      1.Email id has been set as shareable.

      2. Create a contact first with Gigya Id along with email address, but please use SE-37 FM CUAN_Interaction_post to create this contact

      3. now using the same se 37-FM please create another interaction but using same email id as the origin as above for ease of use please maintain both email address in uppercase and ensure they are not case sensitive as the screen shot in your initial problem show different email addresses. upper and lower case.

      4. Check what contacts are created in ROOT and FCET table after you create above two interactions.

      Thanks

      Vineet

  • May 02 at 05:36 PM
    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • avatar image
    Former Member
    May 03 at 07:05 AM

    Dear Sepide,

    In your customizing, what did you set for ID_ORIGIN email? Is this set to one per contact?

    With regards,

    Akil

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • Hi Komur,

      Thanks for your help.
      I will do debug the BADI and will let you know. Because we have activated the BADI for merging Contact and we decide to do "Drop".

      Thanks again
      Sepide

  • May 04 at 12:36 PM

    Hi Koumar,

    We have activated the BADI (Interaction Contact Update BADI)

    and it seems that when ithe Badi is active the system is goint to another way!

    I mean we copied from the standard one and there is nothing custom modifictaon in the BAdi, but as we found if the BAdi is Active is doing another way.

    Do you have any idea?

    Thanks
    Sepide

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • Former Member

      Dear Sepide,

      If you use the BAdI as is, there shouldn't be any issues. Did you check the suggestion that Vineet had on what you used in the header section of your FM "CUAN_CE_INTERACTIONS_POST"?

      With regards,

      Akil

  • May 10 at 06:23 AM

    See customizing for origins of contact and have you allowed to have email sharable or is it non-sharable.

    Maris

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • Hi Maris,

      I checked this settings, and they are correect.
      The issue was related to the BADI that we implemented.

      Thanks
      Sepide