There are many bug reports which are dedicated to certain inclusions into the onboarding tool. To prevent merge conflicts and fussing with dependencies, I have decided to group them all into one bug report, here. The aspects to be included in this patch are from the following bugs: - Bug 18002: Aquisitions onboarding tool - to help users set up acquisitions the first time/Bug 18888 - Include the definition of currency in onboarding tool - Bug 18308 - Default value of minPasswordLength should be increased - Bug 21265 - Additional step at end of onboarder to enable HEA
(In reply to Hayley Mapley from comment #0) > There are many bug reports which are dedicated to certain inclusions into > the onboarding tool. To prevent merge conflicts and fussing with > dependencies, I have decided to group them all into one bug report, here. > > The aspects to be included in this patch are from the following bugs: > - Bug 18002: Aquisitions onboarding tool - to help users set up acquisitions > the first time/Bug 18888 - Include the definition of currency in onboarding > tool > - Bug 18308 - Default value of minPasswordLength should be increased > - Bug 21265 - Additional step at end of onboarder to enable HEA Actually, Bug 18002 should not be included here.
Hi Hayley, I am a strong believer in the 'small steps' approach. I'd really like to keep them as separate patches that are easier to test as they focus on a single thing. Increasing the min password length could even be considered for backporting.
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #2) > Hi Hayley, > > I am a strong believer in the 'small steps' approach. I'd really like to > keep them as separate patches that are easier to test as they focus on a > single thing. Increasing the min password length could even be considered > for backporting. Hi Katrin, I totally understand. I've just had a lot of trouble trying to do these as separate patches without causing merge conflicts because it involves reordering the steps with the templates, which git super doesn't like. In that case, I will probably have to make each patch dependent on the previous patch (and have lots of steps that could block this enhancement) to prevent conflicts, which I thought could be confusing but if you think it's better then I am happy to do it.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 18308 ***