Add activity for display name change

[MorrisJobke]

Looks then like this:

[blizzz]

let me see what happens when the name changed on LDAP and got synced down

[blizzz]

let me see what happens when the name changed on LDAP and got synced down

That ideally should be something like "You display name was updated by the system". We had the same once with the email changed event as well.

[blizzz]

#25148 (comment)

[blizzz]

Works now, when it is updated by the system (occ or background job for instance) it is fine.

There is another edge case:

This was during normal operation of that user and due to cold cache. This can happen when the user is included in a search operation by someone else, then it was xyz who changed the displayname. But then the better change would be to not update the displayname on action, but leave it to the background job as well. Let me take care of that.

Users that are being soaked in for the first time do not see the activity. This is better not a race condition :D

Apart of that I expect the ajax-type job does not run with context of the logged in user.

[rullzer]

So we are good to go?

[MorrisJobke]

So we are good to go?

It has false claims for LDAP users (stuff like "Your displayname was updated by AnotherUser" if the other user searched for something and your entry was updated by the system). I don't like this that much. Also back porting then the big change by @blizzz that changes the fetching of LDAP data is also something I don't fully like. :(

Let's keep this a bit longer here. Maybe @blizzz has an idea how to nicely work around this situation.

[ChristophWurst]

Let's keep this a bit longer here. Maybe @blizzz has an idea how to nicely work around this situation.

Moved. We can still backport from 22 if the changes are small.

[blizzz]

and am afraid once more to 23. still work to be done. and conflicts to resolve.

[skjnldsv]

Test are green. @blizzz wanna do something on top of that?

[blizzz]

Test are green. @blizzz wanna do something on top of that?

Don't remember without looking into it again. Went down the prio list a lot previously. I think #25148 was a requirement.

[MorrisJobke]

Tricky to solve and most likely needs a more advanced way of doing it. Therefore I will close this one here. Feel free to take parts of this into a new PR.