deltachat
move pref_system_emoji pref to advanced and enable it by default
![github-actions[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
hm, better go on pair with "in-app camera" and name the option "Use In-App Emoji" as well (inverted then), see https://github.com/deltachat/deltachat-android/issues/2980 - i would also define new strings for that, reusing with changed meanings will add some noise to translators.
so, pref_use_builtin_emoji and pref_use_builtin_emoji_explain, comparable to #2674
reason is also that we could tune further down by moving to "experimental" at some point (which needs to be off by default)
(notice this PR changes the default to prefer system emoji for all DC users not only new ones, I was not sure how to detect this, but also I think it should be fine to change for all, they can always enable them again in the settings)
yeah, wording looks lice now. thanks!
(notice this PR changes the default to prefer system emoji for all DC users not only new ones, I was not sure how to detect this
i would not try to detect it, but just continue using the old flag.
this would require little more code on handling in the settings, as we cannot leave that completely to .xml, but there are lots of other settings where we did that as well, should be easy
but also I think it should be fine to change for all, they can always enable them again in the settings)
while it is true that ppl can switch, we will need to deal with questions and discussions then. we have seen that several times, it seems better to move slowly here
i would not try to detect it, but just continue using the old flag.
since old flag was for "use system emoji" and it was disabled by default, there is no old key value saved, so you can't know if the key is not set because it is a new user or because it is an old user that never changed the setting and hence was using built-in emoji :thinking:
closing this PR, see https://github.com/deltachat/deltachat-android/issues/2980#issuecomment-2252706584 for the reasoning