More improvements to the flexmls IDX API

by Greg Kilwein on October 26, 2011

in flexmls API

We’re happy to announce that these features have been added to the flexmls API:

  • IDX API clients may now determine if a field will be visible in a response from the Listings service via a new MlsVisible attribute in the Standard Fields service. This is useful for informing user interface choices; if the MLS doesn’t allow the field’s data to be delivered, then those fields may be hidden throughout the user interface.
  • User qualifications such as designations are now retrievable via the Accounts service.
  • New sub-services have been added to the System Info service show what account-related metadata is defined for the MLS, which currently includes account designations like e-Pro, etc.
  • A Settings attribute is now available in the /my/account service. This returns information about whether the user has restrictions on what may be searched in a SearchRestriction attribute. For example, some users are only allowed to search active listings. If SearchRestriction is empty, the user may search any field. Currently, two search restrictions are supported: MlsStatus and PostalCode. The API client may use these settings to inform what search options are available in the application’s user interface.
  • IDs have been added to individual contact information items in the Accounts service. This may be used by client applications that wish to refer to contact information via ID for storage for later use instead of storing the actual contact information directly.


Please let us know if you have any questions or problems.



Max November 4, 2011 at 3:34 pm

Hi Greg,

if I understand it correctly, SearchRestriction attribute should show us the fields restricted by the local MLS, and therefore help us solve the issue with choosing StandardFields that aren’t censored with asterisks, right? Like for example Subdivision field that is in StandardFields and is searchable, but is restricted by ARMLS.

Greg Kilwein November 4, 2011 at 3:50 pm

Max, no, SearchRestriction is used to retrieve the individual user’s search restrictions. For example, some users can only search specific zip codes or are limited to certain statuses. For the purpose of finding out what fields that the MLS has or hasn’t restricted, the MlsVisible attribute in the Standard Fields service response is what you’re looking for.

Max November 4, 2011 at 4:47 pm

Thanks for steering me into the right direction!

I just filtered out all searchable standard fields that are visible and MlsStatus was on that list… I was under impression that IDX searches are limited to only Active listings. Am I missing something?

Greg Kilwein November 4, 2011 at 4:53 pm

Nope. Searching anything other than Active listings won’t work. It’s just there for completeness since it is technically searchable even though it only allows searching actives.

Max November 4, 2011 at 4:55 pm

Is this the only field like that among the Standard Searchable fields or there are other exceptions that should be hidden from the end-user eyes?

Greg Kilwein November 10, 2011 at 8:03 am

That’s the only field now that would be restricted beyond what the MlsVisible attribute returns.

Max November 14, 2011 at 2:03 pm

Greg, I also noticed that MlsVisible for BathsTotal returns only B & H Property Types, but it works with A (which is Residential)… So, basically, if I wanted to identify dynamically, which fields are supported, I’d be missing this field for residential searches, which is quite critical.

Greg Kilwein November 14, 2011 at 4:17 pm

Max, our initial research indicates this is a bug. BathsTotal is visible in ARMLS’s Residential property type, so it should be marked as MlsVisible. We’ll get it fixed.

Greg Kilwein November 16, 2011 at 9:09 am

Max, we confirmed this is a bug and have released a patch to address it. Please let me know if it’s still not working as you expect. We confirmed that BathsTotal is now showing as MlsVisible in property types A, B, and H.

Max November 16, 2011 at 3:51 pm

Thank you Greg! I see more fields just became visible as well 🙂

Greg Kilwein November 16, 2011 at 4:03 pm

No problem. The bug was affecting more than just that one field.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: