On 1/4/20 5:10 AM, ritwik p wrote:
> Mark Sapiro wrote:
>
>> Because the comment is backwards.
>
> What do you mean by this??
The comment says
# We can't assert anything about member. It will be None when
# the workflow we're confirming is an unsubscription request,
# and non-None when we're
On 1/4/20 5:13 AM, ritwik p wrote:
> Mark Sapiro wrote:
>
>> That's exactly the issue. The code doesn't fully account for
>> unsubscription. (And comments don't always agree with what the code
>> actually does.)
>
> So basically I need to modify/update/rewrite the `confirm(token)` function?
> Whe
Mark Sapiro wrote:
> That's exactly the issue. The code doesn't fully account for
> unsubscription. (And comments don't always agree with what the code
> actually does.)
So basically I need to modify/update/rewrite the `confirm(token)` function?
Where can I start with this?
Also any pointers as t
Mark Sapiro wrote:
> Because the comment is backwards.
What do you mean by this??
> because member exists when when we are unsubscribing a member and member
> doesn't yet exist when we are subscribing a new member.
> The comment We can't assert anything about member. actually applies to
> all th
