I'm currently using
{
"hook": "action:email.send",
"method": "email",
"priority": 5
}
within the emoji-extended plugin.json, it resolves to this function:
function(data){
return data.html+="\n<style type='text/css'>"+EMAIL_STYLE+"</style>"
}
(compiled coffeescript, EMAIL_STYLE is a defined variable)
I'm sure this has been working some time ago in local tests for appending those styles to any emails.
It's not working anymore as it seems. I cannot find the appended styles anywhere within emails I receive.
I can't figure out why it's not working anymore. It's all synchronous, so the change within the data should trigger before the call of the mailers (with default priority, 10) action-hook. And even so it's an action hook the priority matters according to my reverse-engineering...
I'd love to see this hook being replaced with a filter since such use is dirty and prevents asynchronous handling. Maybe this would also solve the problem...
Tested with emails of this board...
Yeah actions don't have any return values, maybe they did long ago, but that is not the case anymore. We can possibly add a filter:email.send
They never did to my knowledge, the return is just coffeescript generated, isn't supposed to change anything.
Why it worked was because of the strict synchronous call order: the fireHook -> asyn.each -> my hook-method doesn't have anything asynchronous inside (the async.each works synchronous if next is called synchronously, I checked the source). So my change of data.html should be before the emailers hook-method gets called in each case. And since it's a change within the data object that gets passed to the emailers hook-method later on the change should be working.
We can possibly add a filter:email.send
Would be great 
In this case the question why it's not working anymore is just nice to know... If anybody has an idea...
Possibly the mail server strips out style tags?
Didn't thought of this yet o_O
But I assume if it's the mailserver it's more probable that it filters out everything that's not contained by the html tag...
I assume I'll need some better string-manipulation then.
Can I assume that any html-string for emails contains a head-tag?
Actually, I don't think we use those tags at all. We just send html without the appropriate wrappings (<html>, <head>, etc), assuming that the mail server will do it for us.
