FIX: Allow half-merged user to be accessed #22105
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
nattsw
changed the title
nattsw
changed the title
jjaffeux
approved these changes
Jun 14, 2023
|
Thanks for reviewing @jjaffeux |
|
This pull request has been mentioned on Discourse Meta. There might be relevant details there: https://meta.discourse.org/t/error-merging-users-with-duplicate-poll-votes/154711/10 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is somewhat of an uncommon case where if a plugin fails to merge a user, the merge would fail but the
user_emailof thesource_userwould have been transferred to thetarget_user. This leaves thesource_userwithout an email, and this bug would occur when admins try to access/admin/users/<id>/<username>.This allows the admin to continue dealing with the user.
https://meta.discourse.org/t/error-merging-users-with-duplicate-poll-votes/154711
A consideration here would be to use a transaction (probably very costly), or reorder the order of events in
UserMerger.merge!