Elijah Hamovitz
Elijah Hamovitz
This PR is a continuation of #55893, which was mis-closed by the Git LFS migration (#55759). ### Previous Comments: ### Previous Reviews:
This PR is a continuation of #53574, which was mis-closed by the Git LFS migration (#55759). ### Previous Comments: ### Previous Reviews:
This PR is a continuation of #53793, which was mis-closed by the Git LFS migration (#55759). ### Previous Comments: ### Previous Reviews:
This PR is a continuation of #56086, which was mis-closed by the Git LFS migration (#55759). ### Previous Comments: ### Previous Reviews:
I would argue that the need to maintain a particular ordering of methods within a definition in order for code to be readable is a code smell. The right way...
Thank you for the thorough consideration!
Testing in my local environment, it looks like the password reset process can be fully completed while the account is locked, and that doing so will also unlock the account....
Almost feels like we should have a "this is intended for internal testing" flag that can be set on a unit. Be a bit more explicit and intentional about all...
Oooh, yeah, tying this to our existing unit lifecycle property makes a ton of sense to me. Definitely seems like anything that hasn't been officially released shouldn't be getting indexed.
@namusyaka I'm also reproing the `undefined method 'concat'` error on ruby v2.5.0