Hello can you help me to filter Contacts using the params ‘fields’ at
Version 3 of the ActiveCampaign API is structured around REST, HTTP, and JSON. API endpoint URLs are organized around resources, such as contacts or deals. It uses HTTP methods for indicating the action to take on a resource, and HTTP status codes...
What I tried that did not work are:
https://account.api-us1.com/api/3/contacts?filters[fields][%phone%]=01234567890
https://account.api-us1.com/api/3/contacts?filters[fields][phone]=01234567890
https://account.api-us1.com/api/3/contacts?filters[phone]=01234567890
https://account.api-us1.com/api/3/contacts?fields[phone]=01234567890
Thank you
its always returning the record even the phone number does not exist.
I want to use the query params ‘fields’ because I want to extend the filter with custom field.
I’ve followed this up with Support via email and apparently the correct API call is:
https://[accountname].api-us1.com//api/3/contacts?filters[custom-field-name]=01234567890
However there is a bug with the endpoint and it does not work. This bug has been acknowledged by Support and passed to their Developers.
I can confirm … this filter is ignored
Do we have an ETA on this being fixed?
I need this for an application.
Alternatively, is there another way to return specific contacts based on a search?
1 Like
If I use the email field, the filter works if I have the full email. The “contains” functionality doesn’t work.
Also if I try and use any other field, nothing is returned. I’ve tried firstName, lastName, & orgid
If I mispell the field name, all contacts are returned.
I’ve contacted support and got confirmation that contacts filtering doesn’t currently work with API v3. I was suggested to use API v1 for now as a workaround, with filters[fields][%PERSTAG%]=Value
python
December 13, 2019, 6:42pm
8
I’ve followed this approach but filters[fields][%PERSTAG%]=1 will return contacts having any value starting with “1”, like “111” or “1whatever”. Is there a way to have an exactly match here?
python
December 13, 2019, 7:01pm
9
My workaround for now is padding the number so 1 -> 000000001 on the field, 23 -> 0000000023.
This way all data is normalised to have 10 digits and so the search works like an exact match