Allow the user to set highlight without %nick%

[omnidan]

My nick is dan on some networks - including german networks. dann is a common word in german so I get push notifications A LOT because %nick% highlights on *dan*.

I made %nick% the default highlight value and now the user can change it without having %nick% part of the value. This means I can do _%nick% _%nick%: or something like that. IMO this is a nicer way of handling this anyway - what else are default values for?

[kuzetsa]

This issue affects me as well, thanks for the patch & I might build your version even if the pull request doesn't get accepted 👍

[amyreese]

I agree with the goal, but my biggest concern is how to handle existing users. There's currently no mechanism that would allow new users to get the new default, while also allowing existing users to have the old behavior.

I will consider the best way to implement this with 2.0.

[omnidan]

even with not having %nick% the default it's still not an optimal solution. You need to check for things like "dan:", "hi dan" and "dan", but not "dann", "danach" or "qwopejdanqiwe".

[amyreese]

Good point.

[omnidan]

Maybe do it the same way popular clients do it?

[fawaf]

also +1

[knu]

Would setting _dan list other keywords here -dan to highlight help?

[knu]

My understanding is that %nick% is automatically appended to the list, so I think ending your list with -%nick% will nullify it.

[amyreese]

Can you update the readme to document the network_blacklist config?

[omnidan]

@jreese I already did that 😱

See: 7fdf468

[amyreese]

Yeah, just realized this pull request includes parts that were already merged elsewhere. Which commits still need to be reviewed/merged? Just the first %nick% change?

[omnidan]

@jreese IIRC this removes the part that auto-adds %nick% to the list and makes it a default parameter instead (so you can override that setting)

[dgw]

@omnidan Can you clean up this PR branch so only the relevant commit(s) will be merged?

I'd be happy to do it myself, but 1) this PR is so old it predates the GitHub feature allowing maintainers to edit the source branch, and 2) even if that option was enabled, I don't really want to mess with someone else's master without permission. 😸