* Cédric Krier [2021-07-12 16:35 +0200]: > >Cédric Krier <firstname.lastname@example.org> added the comment: > >On 2021-07-12 16:26, Nicolas Évrard wrote: >> * Cédric Krier [2021-07-12 15:28 +0200]: >> >> >I do not understand. We use the addresses countries only if there is no prefix >> >on the phone. >> >> That's the use case: the user typed "06xxxxxxxx" without the international >> prefix (+33 (incorrect) or +590 (correct)). It's parsed as "+33 6 xxxxxxxx" >> (because of the address). >> >> If the address had been in Guadeloupe, it would have yield "+590 6 xxxxxxxx" >> which is valid. > >I see no problem. The system can not guess what is the local (and there >may be multiple local). >We enforce to fill unambiguous number but try to guess with plausible. So it's a won't fix because relying on is_possible_number does not work either because it's way too easy to input invalid number with it. The thing is that people having those phone numbers do not even realize their phone number is not a French one. I guess they will learn it once they will input it in something that use phonenumbers. >> >So I do not understand why changing the address would make an >> >existing valid phone (which has been formatted with the prefix) invalid. Note that this is not true: a phone number that has been formatted is not valid. It has been parsed but not validated yet. >> The phone is not valid but parsed anyway probably because it's dialable. > >I do not understand what you mean. I don't know how to be more clear than "the phone number is not valid but parsed any way because it's dialable". Which is how I thought phonenumbers works but after reading its code it's false. In fact phonenumbers parse any number as long as it looks a tiny bit valid.
|2021-07-12 17:36:42||nicoe||set||recipients: + ced|
|2021-07-12 17:36:42||nicoe||link||issue10574 messages|
Showing 10 items. Show all history (warning: this could be VERY long)