Render %{invitee_name} as full name only

[tophee (Christoph)]

When usernames are derived from emails (especially work emails), they often are very similar to the users real name. If the user has set their real name (and if real names are not hidden via site settings) this currently results in invite emails starting like this

John Doe (doe) invited you to join

As far as I can tell without any knowledge of ruby, this is where the John Doe (doe) part gets rendered:

app/mailers/invite_mailer.rb

I don’t see the benefit of mentioning the username at all if the real name is available. After all, you are inviting someone who is not yet a member (most of the time at least) and hence can’t relate to the username anyway. So I would like to change line 18 to

  invitee_name = "#{invite.invited_by.name}"

but I don’t know how to achieve this on my site and I’m also hesitant to fiddle with the core code. Is this a change that would make sense for the core? If not, could someone give me some hints how to make that change locally while maintaining upgradability?

BTW: why is the variable called invitee_name when “invitee” commonly designates the invited person, not the inviting person?

---

So, just to understand things better, does what I’m trying to do imply forking Discourse? I hope there is a simpler way for making such a minor change…

[pacharanero (Marcus Baw)]

@tophee

Warum heißt die Variable invitee_name, wenn „Invitee“ üblicherweise die eingeladene Person bezeichnet und nicht die einladende?

Ich war gerade dabei, ein #contribute:bug-Thema zu diesem Problem zu erstellen, aber ich greife es hier auf und stimme mit +1 zu.

„Invitee“ bezeichnet definitiv die Person, die eingeladen wurde. Die Person, die einlädt, sollte der Inviter/Invitor sein. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/327842/person-who-invites-inviter-or-invitor.

Es ist besonders verwirrend beim Bearbeiten der E-Mail-Vorlagen für Einladungen – ich dachte, %{invitee_name} würde den Namen der Person einsetzen, die ich einladen wollte, also habe ich die Sätze entsprechend angepasst. Nur ergaben die Einladungen danach keinen Sinn mehr, da %{invitee_name} tatsächlich den Benutzernamen der Person einsetzte, die die Einladung erstellt hatte.

Ich würde den OP in diesem Thema unterstützen, der die Verwendung des vollständigen Namens vorschlug, falls verfügbar, anstelle des Benutzernamens, der für neue Benutzer manchmal unverständlich sein kann.

Aber wir müssen %{invitee_name} in %{inviter_name} ändern, weil es wahnsinnig verwirrend und ungenau ist. Ich könnte das eigentlich selbst machen. Wenn du an einem PR interessiert wärst, würde ich es versuchen.

[codinghorror (Jeff Atwood)]

Yeah this is bad and wrong, you are 100% correct. Not sure who worked on this originally, but they got it wrong.

• Invitee: person being invited

• Inviter: person sending the invitation

Can you add to your list @techAPJ?

[tophee (Christoph)]

@codinghorror

Invitee: person being invited

Inviter: person sending the invitation

What abour the main point of the OP? Do you intend to make that change too?

[techAPJ (Arpit Jalan)]

@pacharanero

we do need to change %{invitee_name} to %{inviter_name}

Done via:

https://github.com/discourse/discourse/commit/0e0794dff9e23f5ee5ba5f68a8a04f08254b4790

and

https://github.com/discourse/discourse/commit/248ad5466d5009476fb7170e878096a3e343ec1c

[techAPJ (Arpit Jalan)]

@tophee

I don’t see the benefit of mentioning the username at all if the real name is available.

I have created a PR for this:

https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/5390

@codinghorror can merge if he agrees.

[codinghorror (Jeff Atwood)]

@tophee

I don’t see the benefit of mentioning the username at all if the real name is available. After all, you are inviting someone who is not yet a member (most of the time at least) and hence can’t relate to the username anyway.

I disagree; you’ll need the username to mention the person properly. Also highly relevant if they are different:

Joe Smith @ninja

[tophee (Christoph)]

I don’t understand your point. Can you elaborate?

[Mittineague]

I think often both could be needed.

If the invite said codinghorror only and I knew Jeff personally I might not have any idea who codinghorror was and be reluctant to accept the invite.

If the invite said Jeff only and I knew Jeff personally I would be more likely to accept the invite, but I might not know that his member name was codinghorror.

[tophee (Christoph)]

@Mittineague

If the invite said codinghorror only and I knew Jeff personally I might not have any idea who codinghorror was and be reluctant to accept the invite.

That part is covered: the proposal is only to skip username if real name is available, not the other way around.

@Mittineague

If the invite said Jeff only and I knew Jeff personally I would be more likely to accept the invite, but I might not know that his member name was codinghorror.

I believe when you follow an invite link you get to see the name, username and avatar of the user who invited you. Is that not so?