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

Email subject and sender name option #404

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Email subject and sender name option #404

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

ririko5834
Copy link

This feature adds option to set email subject and email sender name

@@ -59,7 +59,8 @@ function doPost(e) {
if (sendEmailTo) {
MailApp.sendEmail({
to: String(sendEmailTo),
subject: "Contact form submitted",
name: String(e.parameters.formGoogleEmailSender) || "Contact Form",
subject: String(e.parameters.formGoogleEmailSubject) || "Contact form submitted",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe these || ... checks won't get hit in all cases.

If the parameters are null or undefined, (like if someone just updates the backend script here or doesn't give these parameters), then you would end up with String(undefined) = 'undefined' which is not falsey.

It may be worth setting the name / subject above and consider using mailData and/or .toString() when the field is present/truthy.

@@ -44,6 +44,8 @@
// add form-specific values into the data
formData.formDataNameOrder = JSON.stringify(fields);
formData.formGoogleSheetName = form.dataset.sheet || "responses"; // default sheet name
formData.formGoogleEmailSubject = form.dataset.subject || "Contact form was submitted"; //default email subject
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is it expected that we set the defaults here, or would we want to have a default like the custom email option below?

nitpick: the comment at the end matches L46, but I think it could be cleaner code to consider changing the variable names here to those, if those are better descriptions than what we have as variables in the code.

what do you think?

@mckennapsean
Copy link
Collaborator

@ririko5834 -- did you have interest in addressing the comments posted here to get this PR merged? or would you prefer we take it from here? :) thanks for your contributions so far!!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants