Input Mask changed on 28th Nov to how data is displayed

  • Profile Image
    Asked on December 04, 2017 at 08:59 PM

    Ok guys,

    Something weird is going on with the phone numbers in our forms.  The screenshot shows the submissions for our membership form and you can see between submission date 2017-11-27 18:21:06 and 2017-11-28 08:26:19 there is a change of the Mobile data. 

    This is a problem with the data now being considered a number when we download it.

    What's even more puzzling is that it is happening only to some of our forms but not all.

    I have supplied 2 URLs of forms that are having this problem.  I am trying to see how the affected forms are different from the not affected forms but that is difficult.   At first I noticed the fields in the membership form do not have "Masked" in the Placeholder in the advanced options (as did forms that still work).  It is an old form with per version 4 fields.    But then I came across the second form I have put in your URL field where it's field does have "Masked" in Placeholder.   This second form also shows a change to the phone number fields after 27th Nov.

    Hopefully you can figure this out for me.


    Jill Kelly

  • Profile Image
    Answered on December 05, 2017 at 02:44 AM

     Additional Information -

    Jill Kelly here again.  I have been doing some testing and noticed a couple of things.  

    The input mask for the phone numbers also means the user can not enter alpha chars but I have received data with letters in the phone numbers (QLD in the Home Phone).  The browser info for these are all Chrome.

    In our office some people have upgraded to the new firefox(57), I have not.  When testing using my computer the masking works (firefox 56).  When testing with firefox57 the masking (and validation) does not work.

    There are however two of our forms that work in firefox57, but I can't see anything different with the forms from the jotform back end.   There are differences when you do an "inspect element".  I might get some screen shots of these and send them along later.

    Thank you for your time

    Jill Kelly

  • Profile Image
    Answered on December 05, 2017 at 02:56 AM

    Thanks for sharing additional details. I'm currently checking the Input Mask on your two forms. Please allow me some time to further investigate. I'll get back to you once I've found results.

  • Profile Image
    Answered on December 05, 2017 at 03:21 AM

    I checked the first form which is ( on a Chrome and Firefox Browser and I was able to replicate the issue. It seems the Input Mask is not working properly when using the custom URL of the form. However, it seems it is working on the default URL of the form which is (

    Regarding the second form which is (, I cloned it to test on my end and it seems the Input Mask is working fine.

    I will escalate this issue to our backend team. For the meantime, you can use the default URL of the forms where the Input Mask is working properly.

    We'll let you know in this thread if there are any updates.

  • Profile Image
    Answered on December 05, 2017 at 06:06 AM

    The difference between cache mechanism of Custom URL's and Standart URL's caused this issue. It should be now solved as we cleared form cache manually.

    Please inform us if the problem occurs.