cleanPhone() method may be unnecessary and problematic

[newoga]

First, thanks much @albeebe for putting this together. Definitely saved me a lot of time.

Quick question: Is there any special reason why we are sanitizing the raw input of non numeric characters with the cleanPhone() method as opposed to just allowing libphonenumber to determine whether or not the phone number is valid?

One use case where allowing characters in the input would be useful is when you have a number like 1-800-CONTACT (1-800-266-8228) or 1-800-ASK-USPS (1-800-275-8777). Google's libphonenumber actually parses characters using the correct corresponding digit and let's you know if it is valid or not (both valid in this case).

[albeebe]

You're very welcome!

I want to start off by saying this is my first attempt at open sourcing. I basically built this to suit my own needs and someone said I should put it up on github. This code was initially thrown together for my own use, then I went through and cleaned it up when I put it on Github. 

I don't exactly know off the top of my head why I sanitize the number. It may not be necessary. It's possible that libphonenumber required it to be sanitized in the past. I just don't know. 

I hope to one day really clean this up. 

Thanks for the encouragement I do appreciate it. 

• Al

—
Sent from Mailbox for iPhone

On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:23 PM, newoga [email protected] wrote:

First, thanks much @albeebe for putting this together. Definitely saved me a lot of time.
Quick question: Is there any special reason why we are sanitizing the raw input of non numeric characters with the cleanPhone() method as opposed to just allowing libphonenumber to determine whether or not the phone number is valid?

One use case where allowing characters in the input would be useful is when you have a number like 1-800-CONTACT (1-800-266-8228) or 1-800-ASK-USPS (1-800-275-8777). Google's libphonenumber actually parses characters using the correct corresponding digit and let's you know if it is valid or not (both valid in this case).

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#8