content_profile integration: use correct content type name

I thought about this some more and it occurred to me that I should split my single user's table into two tables, one with ID, name, email, and the other with the same ID field and phone. Then establish the relationship (left join with users on the left) between the two tables using the common ID field and import the first table as users, and the second as the corresponding content-profile. Then the Table Wizard relationship I created properly correlates users with their content profile.

Is that right?

This is the answer I got back from Mike, today by email:

Migrate supports the content_profile module out-of-the-box, but not the core profile module. If you have content_profile installed, and have added CCK fields to the profile content type, those CCK fields show up as destinations on the mapping page for a user destination. You don't need to do anything special with the Table Wizard. You should be able to map the phone in your content set view directly to your CCK phone field.

Indexing is not necessary, but queries joining large tables will perform much faster if the fields used in the joins are indexed.

I don't see in what you've described a need to define any relationships. But, should you want to,... The relationships page does not define whether a join will be a left join or right join, but the direction of the join supported. I.e., if you define a relationship with a left side of table1.ID, and a right side of table2.ID, then when you use table1 as the base of a view you can add a relationship to table2 (and optionally make it a left join) but to start with table2 and add a Views relationship to table1, you first need to have a Table Wizard relationship with table2.ID on the left side and table1.ID on the right side.

I have to think about this some more and try importing users again, but I was able to import the user name and email into the standard profile, but don't recall seeing any content-profile fields in the fields list, when importing into the 'user' type. The fields did show up when selecting 'node' type, I think it was. I'll report back soon.

I first setup content-profile fields in CCK.

Then I tried to import the user table I described before.

If I select the 'kind of destination' as 'user' and then select 'destination content type' as 'personal profile' (the name of my content-profile type), on the next page I get the selection box for 'destination content type' again, but only roles are shown (mislabled?).

At this point the mapping set shows only:

User: Username
User: Password
User: Email address
User: Account created
User: Account last accessed
User: Last logged in

Using this mapping set I was able to populate the username and email in the regular profile fields using the 2nd choice of role. Only if I select the 'kind of destination' as 'node' am I shown all the CCK fields in my content-profile.

I cannot set the 'kind of destination' to 'user' and get a mapping set with CCK fields from my content-profile type, only the six standard profile fields shown above. The choice of 'Profile' refers to the generic content-profile type installed by the content-profile module that isn't being used and has no added CCK fields. My custom content-profile types were created from scratch and told to become content-profile types (checkbox at bottom of form). I did not use the stock Profile (profile-content) form. There is no other choice for 'profile'. I have to set the 'kind of destination' to 'node' to see the CCK fields in my custom content-profile mapping set.

It seems I cannot get a single destination set that includes Username, Email, and CCK fields.

That's why I thought I had to use relationships to tie the content-profile migrate set to the standard profile set using the ID key as the common element so the two end up synched. I was thinking of splitting the user table into two parts, one with ID, Username, Email, and the other with ID, Phone, because they both use different 'kind of destination' types. Common source, different destination.

What am I doing wrong?

With the left join/right join thing, I actually meant left join and inner join, but I've since figured out the jargon and I'm pretty sure I get it now.

Tnx, Jeff