Constituent Merge in v11

According to our users, in v10 accounts scheduled for merge would merge even after some minor update (non transactional)  in between the time accounts schedule for merge and merge procedure could run but in v11 they won’t; any minor changes in delete or keep account after they scheduled for merge will prevent them from merging. Does anybody know if there is any changes regarding this in v11 merging procedure? I couldn’t find  anything in the v11.0.4 release notes. Thanks for any information on this.

 

Mo

National Ballet of Canada

Parents
  • Thanks Heather and Chirs for your comments. It helps.

     

    Best,

     

    Mo

     

    From: Tessitura Next Generation Forum [mailto:forums-nextgeneration@tessituranetwork.com] On Behalf Of Chris Jensen
    Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:55 PM
    To: Mohiuddin Faruqe
    Subject: Re: [Tessitura Next Generation Forum] Constituent Merge in v11

     

    After years and countless merges being delayed by a day due to just such trivial, non-transactional updates, we realized that these "Merge aborted! Reason: Customer activity took place..." errors had never resulted in a merge being skipped that we actually wanted to skip. So, we commented out the block of code in AP_MERGE_CUSTOMER that does this particular check, with no regrets and less wasted time. YMMV...

    From: Mohiuddin Faruqe <bounce-mohiuddinfaruqe8297@tessituranetwork.com>
    Sent: 11/28/2012 9:13:55 AM

    According to our users, in v10 accounts scheduled for merge would merge even after some minor update (non transactional)  in between the time accounts schedule for merge and merge procedure could run but in v11 they won’t; any minor changes in delete or keep account after they scheduled for merge will prevent them from merging. Does anybody know if there is any changes regarding this in v11 merging procedure? I couldn’t find  anything in the v11.0.4 release notes. Thanks for any information on this.

     

    Mo

    National Ballet of Canada




    You were sent this message automatically by www.tessituranetwork.com because you subscribed to the Tessitura Next Generation forum email notifications. You may reply to this message or visit the site to reply to the post above. If replying via email, please consider deleting the previous message text before sending to help with readability on the site. Thank you!

  • Hi All,

    Sorry to dredge up an old thread, but we have noticed this happening a lot more since we upgraded to V11 (nearly a year ago now) as well and it's suddenly coming to a head.  For several months after the upgrade we fell way behind on merging but decided we'd just have to live with it for a while.  In late spring/early summer, our box office staff was able to get completely caught up with merging.  Unfortunately, they are now beginning to fall behind again now that our season is about to start and things are getting busier.  I think that this "Merge Aborted" problem is likely a significant contributor to their inability to get through all of the merges each week.  In July and August, nearly 40% of all scheduled merges failed because at least one of the accounts was altered after the date it was identified as a duplicate.  (By the way, I only very recently realized that it was based off of the date that the duplicates were identified.  The wording of "since this was drafted for merging" or "since this was scheduled for merging", to me, makes it sound like it's based on the date the merge is actually scheduled by the user.)  It makes sense that so many would have been altered because part of our merge procedure has always involved some amount of account cleanup.  That is, we standardize address formats, correct misspellings, etc. on the account that we plan to keep.  In addition, it's our policy to always keep the oldest account when merging (due to internal preferences to not change patrons' account numbers), so that often means updating the primary contact info on the kept account so that the more recent info from the account to be deleted doesn't get merged in as inactive/non-primary.

    There definitely seems to be some difference between V10 and V11 regarding this error, but I can't figure out what it would be.  The V10 AP_MERGE_CUSTOMER used the same criteria for producing this error (T_CUSTOMER.last_activity_date > T_POTENTIAL_DUPS.create_dt) as the V11 AP_MERGE_CUSTOMER.  I'm wondering whether T_CUSTOMER.last_activity_dt is being updated more frequently in V11 for some reason, as I believe Mo was implying above.  It is updated by TP_CUST_ACTIVITY_UPD, which I assume is called by the application when certain things happen.  Is there a chance that it's being called now every time you save anything in the customer record?  Could someone from TN speak to this?

    I like your suggestion, Chris, about commenting out that code in AP_MERGE_CUSTOMER, but I'm not sure how our DBA (or TN for that matter) would feel about that since it's not a local procedure.  (She's on vacation this week or I'd ask her!)  As a long-term solution, I think it would be nice if there were a T_DEFAULTS setting for that with a clause built into AP_MERGE_CUSTOMER that would skip that portion of the error checking if it was turned off.

    As for now, I'm a little stumped.  Has anyone else found a creative way of getting past this issue?  Has anyone not experienced this issue at all?  And if not, do you have any insights into why you haven't?

    Any advice would be appreciated!

    Thanks,
    Bryan Evans
    Manager of Data Analysis
    Cincinnati Symphony and Pops Orchestra 

  • Former Member
    Former Member $organization in reply to Bryan Evans

    Hi Bryan

    I suspect that you could effectively bypass that check, without editing Tess code (which I would certainly try to avoid)  by running a script, immediately before the merge job each time, to reset the create_dt fields for your merge pairs.

    Ie something like 

    update [dbo].t_potential_dups pd

    set pd.create_dt = getdate()

    where pd.status in ('K', 'D')

     

    /Ken

Reply
  • Former Member
    Former Member $organization in reply to Bryan Evans

    Hi Bryan

    I suspect that you could effectively bypass that check, without editing Tess code (which I would certainly try to avoid)  by running a script, immediately before the merge job each time, to reset the create_dt fields for your merge pairs.

    Ie something like 

    update [dbo].t_potential_dups pd

    set pd.create_dt = getdate()

    where pd.status in ('K', 'D')

     

    /Ken

Children