Migrates the configure later button for 2FA configuration

changed milestone to %15.1

added UX devopsmanage groupauthentication and authorization [DEPRECATED] maintenancerefactor pajamasintegrate priority4 sectiondev severity4 typemaintenance workflowproduction labels

assigned to @mvanremmerden

Please wait for Reviewer Roulette to suggest a designer for UX review, and then assign them as Reviewer. This helps evenly distribute reviews across UX.

Suggested Reviewers (beta)

The individuals below may be good candidates to participate in the review based on various factors.

You can use slash commands in comments to quickly assign /assign_reviewer @user1.

Suggested Reviewers
`@ClemMakesApps`, `@gitlab-release-tools-bot`, `@kushalpandya`, `@dmishunov`, `@pslaughter`

If you do not believe these suggestions are useful, please apply the label Bad Suggested Reviewer. You can also provide feedback for this feature on this issue: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/357923.

Automatically generated by Suggested Reviewers Bot - an experimental ML-based recommendation engine created by ~"group::applied ml".

@dmoraBerlin Would you mind reviewing this small removal? I think we might need to migrate this over to our usual input validation at some point, but that's outside of my knowledge.

requested review from @dmoraBerlin

	1 Warning
	You've made some app changes, but didn't add any tests. That's OK as long as you're refactoring existing code, but please consider adding any of the maintenancepipelines, maintenanceworkflow, documentation, QA labels.

Reviewer roulette

Changes that require review have been detected!

Please refer to the table below for assigning reviewers and maintainers suggested by Danger in the specified category:

Category	Reviewer	Maintainer
frontend	Thomas Randolph (`@thomasrandolph`) (UTC-6)	Natalia Tepluhina (`@ntepluhina`) (UTC+2)
UX	Libor Vanc (`@lvanc`) (UTC-10)	No maintainer available

To spread load more evenly across eligible reviewers, Danger has picked a candidate for each review slot, based on their timezone. Feel free to override these selections if you think someone else would be better-suited or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.

To read more on how to use the reviewer roulette, please take a look at the Engineering workflow and code review guidelines. Please consider assigning a reviewer or maintainer who is a domain expert in the area of the merge request.

Once you've decided who will review this merge request, assign them as a reviewer! Danger does not automatically notify them for you.

Generated by Danger

@thomasrandolph Would you mind reviewing this tiny removal?

requested review from @thomasrandolph

Bundle size analysis [beta]

This compares changes in bundle size for entry points between the commits 07ba3784 and 0b68138b

Special assets

Entrypoint / Name	Size before	Size after	Diff	Diff in percent
average	3.47 MB	3.46 MB	-3.14 KB	-0.1 %
mainChunk	1.94 MB	1.94 MB	-	-0.0 %

Significant Growth: 1

Expand

Entrypoint / Name	Size before	Size after	Diff	Diff in percent
pages.groups.issues	2.37 MB	2.42 MB	+52.73 KB	2.2 %

New entry points: 1

Expand

Entrypoint / Name	Size before	Size after	Diff	Diff in percent
pages.projects.static_site_editor.show	0 Bytes	1.81 MB	+1.81 MB	100.0 %

Significant Reduction: 6

Expand

Entrypoint / Name	Size before	Size after	Diff	Diff in percent
pages.groups.details	1.31 MB	714.87 KB	-623.61 KB	-46.6 %
pages.groups.show	1.32 MB	732.71 KB	-623.61 KB	-46.0 %
pages.groups.group_members	1.59 MB	1001.94 KB	-622.76 KB	-38.3 %
pages.import.gitlab_projects.new	17.62 KB	15.52 KB	-2.1 KB	-11.9 %
pages.registrations.groups_projects.new	51.42 KB	49.32 KB	-2.1 KB	-4.1 %
pages.registrations.projects.new	31.12 KB	29.02 KB	-2.1 KB	-6.7 %

Your MR has at least one entrypoint growing significantly (more > 1 KB or 2%). If you write new or extend existing features, this is expected and there is nothing to worry about.

Please consider pinging someone from the FE Foundations (@dmishunov, @justin_ho, @mikegreiling or @nmezzopera) for review, if you are unsure about the size increase.

Note: We do not have exact data for 07ba3784. So we have used data from: 32b7e2e5.
The target commit was too new, so we used the latest commit from master we have info on.
It might help to rerun the bundle-size-review job
This might mean that you have a few false positives in this report. If something unrelated to your code changes is reported, you can check this comparison in order to see if they caused this change.

Please look at the full report for more details

Allure report

allure-report-publisher generated test report!

review-qa-blocking: test report for 0b68138b

expand test summary

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          suites summary                           |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+--------+
|                      | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | result |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+--------+
| Plan                 | 41     | 0      | 1       | 41    | ❗     |
| Create               | 23     | 0      | 2       | 23    | ❗     |
| Verify               | 12     | 0      | 1       | 12    | ❗     |
| Manage               | 35     | 1      | 2       | 38    | ❌     |
| Configure            | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | ➖     |
| Package              | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | ➖     |
| Version sanity check | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | ➖     |
| Protect              | 2      | 0      | 0       | 2     | ❗     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+--------+
| Total                | 113    | 1      | 9       | 116   | ❌     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+--------+

@brodock I have no clue what the reason for this "Configure it later" button is, but when tracing it back the last commit I could find is b61a5bc2, so I was wondering whether you had some better insights?

requested review from @brodock

resolved all threads

approved this merge request

@dmoraBerlin, thanks for approving this merge request.

This is the first time the merge request is approved. To ensure full test coverage, a new pipeline has been started.

For more info, please refer to the following links:

requested review from @hsutor and @sliaquat and removed review request for @thomasrandolph

@mvanremmerden, please can you answer the question: Should this have a feature flag? to help with code review for the Authentication and Authorization group.

This nudge was added by this triage-ops policy.

added 1 commit

34fbbcd7 - Removes the configure later button

Compare with previous version

changed the description

changed title from Removes the configure later button for 2FA configuration to Migrates the configure later button for 2FA configuration

resolved all threads

@thomasrandolph As it seems like there is actually more functionality behind the button than expected, I've reduced the scope to just a migration. Would you mind re-doing your initial round of review?

requested review from @thomasrandolph and removed review request for @brodock, @sliaquat, @dmoraBerlin, and @hsutor

mentioned in issue #363408

added 1 commit

0b68138b - Move button to its own line

Compare with previous version

changed the description

approved this merge request

requested review from @dmishunov and removed review request for @thomasrandolph

approved this merge request

From the code stand point, everything looks fine to me. From the functionality stand point, there's nothing that has been changed so I will go on and approve + merge. Good job, @mvanremmerden.