adds a couple of new constructors for Message, including New(*buffalo.App). this fixes #1296

[markbates]

@kteb I know you took a swing at this too. There were a things about your approach that didn't feel "right" to me.

My approach adds two new attributes to Message : Context Context and Data render.Data. When calls to functions like Message#AddBody the Message.Data and the passed in data will be merged together.

I've also add a New(c buffalo.Context) Message. We should recommend people use this function when sending emails from an action. This will add the context's data to the Message.Data. This brings along the route paths.

I'm up for discussion on this if people don't like it.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1338 into development will increase coverage by 0.37%.
The diff coverage is 92.3%.

@@               Coverage Diff               @@
##           development    #1338      +/-   ##
===============================================
+ Coverage        48.38%   48.76%   +0.37%     
===============================================
  Files               91       92       +1     
  Lines             4005     4040      +35     
===============================================
+ Hits              1938     1970      +32     
- Misses            1964     1966       +2     
- Partials           103      104       +1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
route_mappings.go	96.89% <100%> (+0.14%)	⬆️
app.go	92.5% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
mail/mail.go	100% <100%> (ø)
mail/message.go	74% <75%> (-1.61%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 39480b2...4b59538. Read the comment docs.

[kteb]

It looks nice. Quick question about the mutex, if I'm right, it here in case we have a process sending multiple emails, and we don't want to mix the data field between them, right ?

Shouldn't we move this package to a plugin ?

[markbates]

I get paranoid around working with maps since they’re not thread safe, hence the mutex. I don’t see a lot of times that that code would be run concurrently, but if it is, it won’t break. :) And yes, mail probably should be a plug-in, but one thing at a time. :) Thanks.

…

----------- Mark Bates

On Oct 1, 2018, 1:04 AM -0400, kteb ***@***.***>, wrote: It looks nice. Quick question about the mutex, if I'm right, it here in case we have a process sending multiple emails, and we don't want to mix the data field between them, right ? Shouldn't we move this package to a plugin ? — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[kteb]

Looks good thanks for help.