Thanks :)

It's really important to add a LICENSE file so I accept.

Interestingly we are probably in a relaxed situation on certain external legal issues, but we still need to work on our internal issues such as

Workaround 😎

OK finally the Diff description is somehow readable from Phorge, without fancy '%%%' or saying (backticks) etc.

In D25299#9166, @avivey wrote:

Sorry, I still don't understand the footer part.

In which cases must it be empty? Who said that?

(The file F315310 is not public)

following review tips

How would we as phorge upstream use the info? Would it inform development? Be just informational?

Sorry, I still don't understand the footer part.

Starting from the end:

In D25312#9149, @speck wrote:

Is it legit for this function to return an array instead of a single item? That’s the only structural question I have- everything else looks good and just some nitpicks.

In discussion over a support ticket one of the potential options that was discussed was having a "An MFA challenge is about to appear, click to continue" prompt in the workflow as a means to prepare users to get their phones/devices ready so they can respond within the 30 seconds. Right now since MFA is opt-in per each user instead of required per auth portal - the current login workflow will immediately prompt you for MFA after successful login, which might surprise users who fumble to get the TOTP code out (it's happened to me).

The comments in https://secure.phabricator.com/T9770 discuss the "spyglass" attack and how this behavior is meant to be more secure.

nice

Very nice

Is it legit for this function to return an array instead of a single item? That’s the only structural question I have- everything else looks good and just some nitpicks.

I got a bit further and got a new issue :-)

In D25299#9134, @avivey wrote:

1. It's not called "Flavored Markdown" - that's not a complete name. It's either "XXX-flavored markdown" or just "markdown".

3. what's the deal with the footer? What does it do?

1. It's not called "Flavored Markdown" - that's not a complete name. It's either "XXX-flavored markdown" or just "markdown".

How would we as phorge upstream use the info? Would it inform development? Be just informational?

In the meanwhile I flag this as "Request Changes" since we are missing important unit tests and additional checks to do not eat legitimate Remarkup :( mainly because interestingly Remarkup was quite more "advanced" than we thought here.

Hi @roguelazer - note that now D25299 is quite usable now. Your feedback would be really welcomed also there! :)

Interestingly, it works ._.

This is just a frontend change, after all. Adding UX

Hoping to receive more feedback from the original author (without closing as invalid) I keep open but with a cute Clarification Needed