This change better handles the situation where t-shirt-0 and t-shirt-1
are requested and owed to the same donor. We've added even more t-shirt
request types at this point meaning many shirts can go to one donor, and
this change should better handle that situation.
This change, which is not properly documented nor tests present, adds
support for making sure those who don't want emails from us do not
receive them.
I believe I've caught most of the places we want this change supported.
This allows adding a .tex file and sending a paper renewal notice.
This worked for me to send the paper renewal notices to Conservancy
Supporters in late 2016.
if we are unable to fulfill a request, this method turns it into an
indefinite hold on the request.
This design model for handling failure in fulfillment may not be the
best one, but it seemed to roughly fit the behavior and data model we're
looking for.
A little information is lost, but is at least saved in the 'why' field
of the request_hold table.
Requests can now be placed "on hold", and getRequest() can ignore held
requests.
This required addition of a table, and another API call holdRequest().
Tests were not written here, which was a mistake. Unit tests and docs
are needed. A FIXME was added, at least.
Also, minor imporvements to reporting on fulfilled requests.
This code worked reasonable well when there was only one type of renewal
notice in play for a long period of time, but the point here is that we
can have many of them and this script should handle sending out the
different ones at different types.
We probably need an entirely separate script to intuit response.
We actually can't rely on a call to $sp->findDonor({}) to give us *just*
Supporters, as eventually, this may be a donor database too. So, count
them.
Really, $sp->findDonor() should be able to take { isSupporter => 1 }
instead.
In an effort to improve the formatting on outgoing emails from the
renewal script, add the display_name to the To: field.
I'm not completely happy with what the MIME encoding is doing here.
Specifically, it chops the line on the < of <email@example.org> so you
get this:
"A very long name that leads to wrapping of the MIME encoded line" <
email@example.org>
As I read https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt, it violates this SHOULD:
Note: Though structured field bodies are defined in such a way that
folding can take place between many of the lexical tokens (and even
within some of the lexical tokens), folding SHOULD be limited to
placing the CRLF at higher-level syntactic breaks. For instance, if
a field body is defined as comma-separated values, it is recommended
that folding occur after the comma separating the structured items
in preference to other places where the field could be folded, even
if it is allowed elsewhere.
Brett and I decided to leave it for now and go with it.
