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

Remove bcc emails #7

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 1, 2023
Merged

Remove bcc emails #7

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 1, 2023

Conversation

lukaszgarstecki
Copy link
Member

Reasoning behind this change:

Sending CC/BCC in this case do not give us much value, since we want to inform the back-office team only. Their emails are most likely already known to everyone within the organization.
Current implementation does not work (at least one email is required by the API) and I don't see value in fixing it (I know - one if). Removing it benefits us in simpler configuration => dev won't need to thing which emails should be to/cc/bcc at all.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 1, 2023

Test Results

3 files  ±0  3 suites  ±0   18s ⏱️ ±0s
8 tests ±0  8 ✔️ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ±0 
9 runs  ±0  9 ✔️ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ±0 

Results for commit 5f98b67. ± Comparison against base commit a1d3f0e.

@lukaszgarstecki lukaszgarstecki merged commit ad3f5cc into main Dec 1, 2023
3 checks passed
@lukaszgarstecki lukaszgarstecki deleted the feature/remove-bcc-emails branch December 1, 2023 12:26
@Saancreed
Copy link
Member

Current implementation does not work (at least one email is required by the API)

The latter is correct (and pretty obvious in hindsight) but why is the former? You were after all passing one To and one Bcc emails so the requirement would be satisfied, wouldn't it?

@lukaszgarstecki
Copy link
Member Author

The client does not accept passing explicitly empty list of emails

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.

2 participants