You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
A followup to #129, the code for putting in the region contact number into the SMS going out to the user on signup for a smoke alarm has a stub for the region contact number. However, that number isn't always there, and so the generic redcross number is in there. Is it better to have a conditional here for when the contact number does exist, or just to remove it? Given that it's been this way for 3 years, it may be best to just accept current functionality as correct, and make the code reflect that.
Also, in light of #264, if we decide to include the contact phone number, how do we handle the messaging when there's more than one designated contact for a region?
Hey, @OhMcGoo, please weigh in on this when you get a chance.
For now, @frankduncan and I have decided (just now on the phone) that the 1-800-REDCROSS number will continue to go out in every text, that Frank will not add a phone-number column to the "Users" table (reminder: the rows in that table represent admin users w/ logins, not people requesting smoke alarms) just to preserve the currently-unused-anyway phone number field in the "Contacts" table, and if we want to add per-region contact phone numbers later we can do that as a separate project -- it would be a new enhancement, and it certainly should not delay or interfere with the rollout of the user-admininstration interface.
This seems to be the course that the conversation in issue #129 implies too, FWIW.
A followup to #129, the code for putting in the region contact number into the SMS going out to the user on signup for a smoke alarm has a stub for the region contact number. However, that number isn't always there, and so the generic redcross number is in there. Is it better to have a conditional here for when the contact number does exist, or just to remove it? Given that it's been this way for 3 years, it may be best to just accept current functionality as correct, and make the code reflect that.
Also, in light of #264, if we decide to include the contact phone number, how do we handle the messaging when there's more than one designated contact for a region?
@kfogel and @OhMcGoo, for discussion :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: