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

perché la variabile si chiama invitee_name quando “invitee” indica comunemente la persona invitata, non quella che invita?

Stavo per creare un topic Contribute > Bug su questo problema, ma partecipo a questa discussione e aggiungo un +1.

“Invitee” indica sicuramente la persona che è stata invitata. La persona che effettua l’invito dovrebbe essere l’invitante (inviter/invitor). https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/327842/person-who-invites-inviter-or-invitor.

È particolarmente confuso quando si modificano i modelli di email per gli Inviti: pensavo che %{invitee_name} inserisse il nome della persona che stavo invitando, quindi ho modificato le frasi di conseguenza, solo per scoprire che gli inviti diventavano completamente incomprensibili perché %{invitee_name} inseriva effettivamente il nome utente della persona che ha creato l’invito.

Sostengo l’autore di questo topic che ha suggerito l’uso del nome completo se disponibile, anziché del nome utente, che può talvolta essere opaco per il nuovo utente.

Tuttavia, dobbiamo cambiare %{invitee_name} in %{inviter_name} perché è estremamente confuso e inaccurato. Potrei persino essere in grado di farlo, quindi se vi interessa una PR (Pull Request), ci proverò.

[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?