You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The Uniqueness Claim Validation feature existed previously, but we recently introduced significant improvements as part of this update.
Some claims can have multiple string representations that refer to the same real-world entity. For example, in the case of a mobile number, both +94771234567 and 0771234567 represent the same number. However, under the current implementation, two different users can still register these variations, even when uniqueness enforcement is enabled.
Suggested Improvement
Analyse and add claim specific unique ness validations also if possible.
Version
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@Thumimku
Then we’ll need to mandate country codes, right? Otherwise, we won’t know which country code to apply to the provided mobile number for normalization. Also, for existing data, we would likely need a migration process to convert all phone numbers into a consistent format—otherwise enforcing uniqueness would be quite complex. If you have any alternate ideas please mention.
Current Limitation
The Uniqueness Claim Validation feature existed previously, but we recently introduced significant improvements as part of this update.
Some claims can have multiple string representations that refer to the same real-world entity. For example, in the case of a mobile number, both +94771234567 and 0771234567 represent the same number. However, under the current implementation, two different users can still register these variations, even when uniqueness enforcement is enabled.
Suggested Improvement
Analyse and add claim specific unique ness validations also if possible.
Version
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: