email modification hook
-
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_STYLEis 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
actionhook theprioritymatters according to my reverse-engineering...I'd love to see this hook being replaced with a
filtersince 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
returnis just coffeescript generated, isn't supposed to change anything.
Why it worked was because of the strict synchronous call order: thefireHook->asyn.each-> my hook-method doesn't have anything asynchronous inside (theasync.eachworks synchronous ifnextis called synchronously, I checked the source). So my change ofdata.htmlshould be before the emailers hook-method gets called in each case. And since it's a change within thedataobject 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 thehtmltag...
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.
