Open stuartpb opened 7 years ago
Should also be balanced against a prospective opening
level (for describing other stuff you have to do to reach a certain point, like just clicking a button), as discussed around #222.
For randomize
, wouldn't activate
or confirm
(for an object stating what happens when a password randomize request is confirmed) make more sense? Also, isn't password.reset.randomize.open.result
kind of redundant with just password.reset.randomize.response.email.body.contains('password') ? 'change' : 'send'
?
Ugh, I'd like this to be taken out, but there's more than a little data that depends on it right now, and it's not so easily refactored. (Honestly, the step itself isn't necessarily unsound - just the name/position could be improved.) Moving this to v0.2.0, and this'll just have to ship with v0.1.0.
I'm not wild about
open
, though I guess it has its place, forexpire
andsessions
and for some weirdness aroundrandomize
. I'd rather see its children moved topassword.reset.flow.change
, though some semantics could get tricky (maybepassword.reset.flow.change.open.expire
?)I'd like to think about refactoring this away and/or moving it before shipping v0.1.0, taking into account everything that's currently on it. I think
password.reset.flow.change.requires
would make just as much sense, if not more, aspassword.reset.flow.change.open.expects
(but, pre-flow
, it would have beenpassword.reset.change.requires
, which would have been weird).