New guest transfer feature : "conversion" notion is better (IMO) than "transfer" notion + quota remains zero about guests HOT 9 OPEN

Thanks @Jerome-Herbinet, then I would indeed agree with your suggestion "Convert guest to regular account".

Also the sorting seems off. Destructive actions should always be at the bottom, ideally separated by a divider. Like so:

• Resend welcome email
• Convert gues to regular account
• (Divider)
• Disable account
• Disconnect all devices and delete local data
• Delete account

from guests.

Thanks @Jerome-Herbinet, then I would indeed agree with your suggestion "Convert guest to regular account".

Also the sorting seems off. Destructive actions should always be at the bottom, ideally separated by a divider. Like so:

* Resend welcome email

* Convert gues to regular account

* (Divider)

* Disable account

* Disconnect all devices and delete local data

* Delete account

@jancborchardt I'll take care of the wording change in a PR, but I won't change menu's entries' order (I think I don't have the required skills).

from guests.

@Pytal what do you think ?

from guests.

@Pytal

In the meantime, a colleague has told me that from a technical point of view it looks like a new user is created, and the old guest is deleted. Can you confirm this?

Nevertheless, I stand by my original request from a UI/UX POV, as I think the notion of conversion is easier to understand, especially as if you enter a username that already exists, you can't continue the process. Also, it would avoid some confusion, for example the fact that folders can be transferred from user settings ("Transfer ownership of a file or folder "). In other words, the transfer notion exists elsewhere and we must not create confusion.

from guests.

In the meantime, a colleague has told me that from a technical point of view it looks like a new user is created, and the old guest is deleted. Can you confirm this?

Yes, this is correct. Under the hood a new user is created and the guest user data is transferred to it before being deleted.

Overall no strong opinion though, I think we should get @nextcloud/designers input on the naming :)

Finally, I've noticed a problem, unless it's deliberate. The quota doesn't change and remains zero; shouldn't the conversion apply the “default” quota to the user after conversion?

Could you split this off into a separate issue? 🙏

from guests.

In the meantime, a colleague has told me that from a technical point of view it looks like a new user is created, and the old guest is deleted. Can you confirm this?

Yes, this is correct. Under the hood a new user is created and the guest user data is transferred to it before being deleted.

Overall no strong opinion though, I think we should get @nextcloud/designers input on the naming :)

Finally, I've noticed a problem, unless it's deliberate. The quota doesn't change and remains zero; shouldn't the conversion apply the “default” quota to the user after conversion?

Could you split this off into a separate issue? 🙏

@Pytal thanks for your answer. Concerning the quota, here is the separate issue : #1226

from guests.

Would "change" be even simpler wording? @Jerome-Herbinet could you show where this wording occurs in context and the change you suggest?

from guests.

how where this wording occurs in context and the change you suggest?

@jancborchardt check the screenshot below. Also, I wonder if "full" is relevant. Suggestion instead : "regular", because "full" word could make admin think about some extra privileges, which is not the case.

from guests.

Wording change PR : #1228

from guests.