Requested developments

When registering an intention, the selection of a mass suggests Masses in the past (which may be necessary, but not in the general case). → put only Masses in the future, and a button to show past Masses? and the search does not work: the query to https://web.enoria.app/intention/search-messes-available?q=4 returns the same results regardless of the q parameter. → set the search so that we can type “sam.” and really get the next Saturday. Thank you so much!

The function to block intentions a few days before mass does not seem to work.

Could there be a price for a novena or a thirty-year

Would it be possible to add a button in the form for requesting Mass intentions so that people can check if they want a novena or a thirty-something without having to select all the masses.

Be able to manually add an intention directly into the celebration sheet.

When we enter a Mass intention directly, would it be possible for its status to automatically change from “Pending” to “Assigned” without us having to go back to the mass to change the status.

Whatever the path of registering a Mass intention (add or modify), being able to arrive directly at the date typed in the input box; this was the case until now for an “add” and not for “modify” but for a few days, this is no longer the case in “add” and we have to scroll to the desired date = a big waste of time!

Hello, in the “Mass intentions” module of the current version of ENORIA, when creating a new intention, it is possible to create the requester as a person directly from the intention editing form. And that's great! But this possibility does not exist when the intention has already been created without an applicant, and is then modified (see screenshot). Is it possible to replicate the functionality in this use case as well? Thanks!

We record Mass intentions on a regular basis and I would like to bring to your attention a point that concerns the applicant. In the input form, it is said that it may be optional. It turns out that if we do not put the name of the payer in this field the association between the intention and the payment will not be made. Couldn't we present things differently by deleting the concept of optional and specifying “requester-pays”, which in fact may be different from the person who asks for an intention and the person who pays? This approach seems to me to be better suited to usage. It's not a problem, just a matter of wording. Those who are doing this at the moment have the right instructions but we change volunteers often and better wording would help. In response to my request, Elodie Massa invites me to file my request in this file. “Entering the name of the requester of intent is not mandatory to create an intention but actually, as you say, if you manage the follow-up of payments for requests of intent, when the requester is anonymous, you cannot in this case link the payment. It seems to me that your request is rather a request to improve the Mass Intentions Management Module and I invite you to submit it, if it has not already been done on our dedicated platform: https://roadmap.enoria.app/developpements-demandes”

Good evening, Would it be possible to add the method of payment (credit card, check, cash) when registering Mass intentions? Thank you so much! Hélène Cellettes Parish 41