Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Removes contact_id condition around 'including yourself' text #31449

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

eightiesguy
Copy link
Contributor

Overview

On event registration form particpant number selection, the help text 'including yourself' is only shown if the user is logged in. It should always be shown

Before

signed_out
signed_in

After

(Including yourself) aways shows

Copy link

civibot bot commented Nov 7, 2024

🤖 Thank you for contributing to CiviCRM! ❤️ We will need to test and review this PR. 👷

Introduction for new contributors...
  • If this is your first PR, an admin will greenlight automated testing with the command ok to test or add to whitelist.
  • A series of tests will automatically run. You can see the results at the bottom of this page (if there are any problems, it will include a link to see what went wrong).
  • A demo site will be built where anyone can try out a version of CiviCRM that includes your changes.
  • If this process needs to be repeated, an admin will issue the command test this please to rerun tests and build a new demo site.
  • Before this PR can be merged, it needs to be reviewed. Please keep in mind that reviewers are volunteers, and their response time can vary from a few hours to a few weeks depending on their availability and their knowledge of this particular part of CiviCRM.
  • A great way to speed up this process is to "trade reviews" with someone - find an open PR that you feel able to review, and leave a comment like "I'm reviewing this now, could you please review mine?" (include a link to yours). You don't have to wait for a response to get started (and you don't have to stop at one!) the more you review, the faster this process goes for everyone 😄
  • To ensure that you are credited properly in the final release notes, please add yourself to contributor-key.yml
  • For more information about contributing, see CONTRIBUTING.md.
Quick links for reviewers...

➡️ Online demo of this PR 🔗

@civibot civibot bot added the master label Nov 7, 2024
@mlutfy
Copy link
Member

mlutfy commented Nov 7, 2024

Makes sense. Thanks @eightiesguy !

@mlutfy mlutfy added merge ready PR will be merged after a few days if there are no objections sig:user interfacing improvement labels Nov 7, 2024
@eileenmcnaughton
Copy link
Contributor

Dang - I kinda wanted rid of that text because we have the situation where people fill in the form for their kids & the 'primary' participant is not 'yourself'

@eightiesguy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Dang - I kinda wanted rid of that text because we have the situation where people fill in the form for their kids & the 'primary' participant is not 'yourself'

Maybe the label text could be "Total number of attendees"? or "How many people are registering?"

@mlutfy
Copy link
Member

mlutfy commented Nov 8, 2024

@eileenmcnaughton Won't it overwrite their contact record, if they use this form to register their kids? They use the "not you?" link?

I guess it would make sense that, if they use the "not you" link, then it should not display the text 🤔

(this UI is very awkward)

@eileenmcnaughton
Copy link
Contributor

@mlutfy well the way in which you would register 2 kids is from our pov registering the kids as if they were themselves one of the 2 kids. So from a Civi POV it is 'including yourself' but from their pov it is 'including the first one'

""How many people are you registering?""

or

""How many people are registering in total?"

per @eightiesguy comment seem to work

@mlutfy
Copy link
Member

mlutfy commented Nov 9, 2024

Fine by me. I like "How many people are you registering?" (because "in total" starts making me doubt)

I guess the thing is, if they are logged-in, or using a checksum, they have to be extra careful. Sometimes I feel like "noverwrite" should be in core. Presumably that's why the code was there originally (the condition around the help text), but imo the correct solution is to rely on the "Not you?" message, and also enforce it work "noverwrite".

(and I can't think of a reason not to use noverwrite, other than maybe 3 people will complain loudly if we do, and otherwise 99% of admins will rejoice because this is a constant source of confusion)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
master merge ready PR will be merged after a few days if there are no objections sig:user interfacing improvement
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants