Match Exactly vs Match at least X numbers in SalesforceV2 template

[George_WB]

Hi there, I am having an issue with my SF integration as since we upgraded to V20 we also had to upgrade to the V2 version of Salesforce Template.
The issue is that by using any other option than Match at least 7 numbers, we are missing calls from being reported on Salesforce. Problem with Match 7 is that sometimes I get Call journaling to add the record on the wrong customer profile as last 7 numbers match.
Ideal scenario is to use Match Exactly but it seems that when I use this I am getting a lot of "CRM Integration is working OK but contact number does not exist"
Even when it identifies the number, I get "Finished scenario with empty id" during Test feature.

Are there any solutions to this issue? I also tried matching 8,9,10,11 last numbers but results are not consistent.

 

[edossantos_sipcaller]

Hi there, I am having an issue with my SF integration as since we upgraded to V20 we also had to upgrade to the V2 version of Salesforce Template.
The issue is that by using any other option than Match at least 7 numbers, we are missing calls from being reported on Salesforce. Problem with Match 7 is that sometimes I get Call journaling to add the record on the wrong customer profile as last 7 numbers match.
Ideal scenario is to use Match Exactly but it seems that when I use this I am getting a lot of "CRM Integration is working OK but contact number does not exist"
Even when it identifies the number, I get "Finished scenario with empty id" during Test feature.

Are there any solutions to this issue? I also tried matching 8,9,10,11 last numbers but results are not consistent.

That's due to how the Salesforce API works. It will not return a match if you provide more digits.... I think it should work with full-match if you store your numbers in E164 format.

 

[George_WB]

That's due to how the Salesforce API works. It will not return a match if you provide more digits.... I think it should work with full-match if you store your numbers in E164 format.

This is the reply when using Match Exactly:
Response finished
Variable Id set to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Variable EntityType set to Account
Variable AccountName set to XYZ
Variable Phone set to +xxxxxxxxxxxx
Variable Fax set to
Variable PhoneAlt__c set to
Variable org__c set to Xxx
Finished scenario with empty id
Started scenario with empty id
Request text: https://xxxx.my.salesforce.com
Response text: {"searchRecords":[]}
Response finished
Finished scenario with empty id
Started scenario with empty id
Request text: https://xxxx.my.salesforce.com
Response text: {"searchRecords":[]}
Response finished
Finished scenario with empty id

And same response using Match at least 7:
Response finished
Variable Id set to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Variable EntityType set to Account
Variable AccountName set to XYZ
Variable Phone set to +xxxxxxxxxxxx
Variable Fax set to
Variable PhoneAlt__c set to
Variable org__c set to Xxxx
Variable Id set to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Variable EntityType set to Account
Variable AccountName set to ABC
Variable Phone set to +zzzzzzzzzzz
Variable Fax set to
Variable PhoneAlt__c set to +zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Variable org__c set to Xxxx
Finished scenario with empty id
Result obtained

In first case it finds the Account I need but it cannot match it, in second case it finds 2 accounts with same last 7 characters and goes and attaches the Call Log on the wrong one. Please also note that in V18, using the older template of Salesforce I was using Match Exactly without any issues.

 

[edossantos_sipcaller]

Are you using a custom template? I see all those "__c" fields, which are custom fields, and those shouldn't be considered by the standard template....

 

[George_WB]

Are you using a custom template? I see all those "__c" fields, which are custom fields, and those shouldn't be considered by the standard template....

Yeah, we are using them on Salesforce.

I believe that the issue has been fixed. It seems that in the case of E164 it wasn't working unless I send + in front of my number, so xxxxxxxxxx is not matched, +xxxxxxxxxx is matched fine. The problem here is that Outgoing CID reformatting is not always working, so in case an agent sends a call without + or with 00 in front, is not matched.
Rules are the following:
00(.*) to +\1
(.*) to +\1

Using the above rules it seems that still calls are not reformatted

 

[Evolute IT]

Yeah, we are using them on Salesforce.

I believe that the issue has been fixed. It seems that in the case of E164 it wasn't working unless I send + in front of my number, so xxxxxxxxxx is not matched, +xxxxxxxxxx is matched fine. The problem here is that Outgoing CID reformatting is not always working, so in case an agent sends a call without + or with 00 in front, is not matched.
Rules are the following:
00(.*) to +\1
(.*) to +\1

Using the above rules it seems that still calls are not reformatted

Use E164 processing or outbound rules.

CID Reformatting isn't always perfect.

 

[George_WB]

Outbound Rules was the solution to this, prepending or removing digits in order to create the proper E164 format,

Thank you all for your assistance!