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

pourquoi la variable s’appelle-t-elle invitee_name alors que « invitee » désigne généralement la personne invitée et non la personne qui invite ?

J’étais sur le point de créer un sujet Contribute > Bug à propos de ce problème, mais je vais sauter sur cette discussion et lui mettre un « +1 ».

« Invitee » désigne clairement la personne qui a été invitée. La personne qui effectue l’invitation devrait être l’inviter ou l’invitor. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/327842/person-who-invites-inviter-or-invitor.

C’est particulièrement déroutant lors de l’édition des modèles d’e-mails pour les invitations : je pensais que %{invitee_name} insérerait le nom de la personne que j’invitais, alors j’ai modifié les phrases en conséquence, mais les invitations n’avaient plus aucun sens car %{invitee_name} insérait en réalité le nom d’utilisateur de la personne qui a créé l’invitation.

Je soutiendrais l’auteur de ce sujet qui a suggéré d’utiliser le nom complet s’il est disponible, plutôt que le nom d’utilisateur, qui peut parfois être opaque pour le nouvel utilisateur.

Mais nous devons absolument changer %{invitee_name} en %{inviter_name} car c’est extrêmement déroutant et inexact. Je pourrais peut-être m’en charger moi-même, donc si cela vous intéresse, je ferai une pull request.

[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?

[codinghorror (Jeff Atwood) A fermé ce sujet ()]

This topic was automatically closed after 33 hours. New replies are no longer allowed.