Do not use local part of JID when private group has no name
Conversations (+forks, and probably some other clients) create "private groups" with no proper name, subject, or description, and a gibberish JID local part. Then in their UIs, for the group name they use the list of (other) participants (Dino does that too). But for the same groups, gajim uses the MUC JID local part, which is ugly and inconsistent.
Would it be OK to align gajim's behaviour with other clients? I think the MUC name in the UI should be, by order of priority:
- Bookmark name (possibly customized by the user)
- MUC disco name
- If private group, alphabetical list of participants' nicknames (or maybe if participants are contacts, the names we use for them in our roster? or maybe, their PEP nickname?)
- Then, only if none of that is available, use the JID local part
Would a MR that does that be accepted?