Opened 4 years ago
Closed 3 years ago
#980 closed enhancement (fixed)
Electronic Agreement - CC + FROM
Reported by: | jbenito | Owned by: | arescope |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | v0.99.0 |
Component: | Video Services | Version: | 0.98-dev |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
2 improvements:
- Allow to CC (by default the logged person) when sending email to authors.
- FROM address is showing wrong information (it shouldn't say Indico Mailer all the time).
Change History (8)
comment:1 Changed 3 years ago by jbenito
- Milestone changed from v0.98.2 to v0.99.0
- Owner set to arescope
- Status changed from new to assigned
- Send email to organizer when authors sign (or not) the agreement (also with a checkbox?)
comment:2 Changed 3 years ago by arescope
- Status changed from assigned to in_work
comment:3 Changed 3 years ago by arescope
- Status changed from in_work to awaiting_merge
We need to discuss the last commit when integrating.
comment:4 Changed 3 years ago by pferreir
- Status changed from awaiting_merge to assigned
Several things to discuss here.
FIrst of all, the changes/fixes I suggest:
http://indico-software.org/repo/personal/indico-pferreir/commit/?h=980-imp-electronic-agreement&id=05bc156f88361473051777967fa9e90eec7f2014
Comments:
- IDs in the mail subject - is this supposed to be user-friendly? Or is it for some other reason? (do managers need the ID?);
- Added conference URL to e-mail - it is more useful and contains the ID in case people need it;
- Used format() function for string formatting;
- Added _() around messages, but still need to find a way to make the text be put in the dictionary - perhaps using the N_ placeholder?
- The checkbox was unchecked by default... actually, does the checkbox make sense at all? Do we want speakers to be able to silently accept the agreement, thus keeping organizers in the dark? If it does, then I think it should be checked by default (yes, like an annoying newsletter);
- I fixed an error due to the fact that the full avatar was being passed as an address in the notification. Was this tested?
comment:5 Changed 3 years ago by pferreir
After discussing the original request with Jose, we got to the conclusion that the implementation of point 3 that this patch suggests differs from the original intent. The speaker shouldn't be the one deciding about the notification - it should be the event creator/manager deciding whether (s)he wants to receive notifications or not. There has been some misunderstanding.
comment:6 Changed 3 years ago by arescope
- Status changed from assigned to awaiting_merge
comment:7 Changed 3 years ago by jbenito
- Status changed from awaiting_merge to merging
comment:8 Changed 3 years ago by jbenito
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from merging to closed