Claude finished@jrmccannon's task ——View job

Code Review Complete

This is a clean, focused PR that addresses a missing DI registration discovered during implementation.

Summary

The PR adds the missingIPolicyValidator registration forAutomaticUserConfirmationPolicyEventHandler in the obsoleteAddPolicyValidators method. This registration was omitted in PR#6552 when the policy was initially added - only theIPolicyUpdateEvent registration inAddPolicyUpdateEvents was included.

Why this matters: Until feature flagsFeatureFlagKeys.CreateDefaultLocation andFeatureFlagKeys.PolicyValidatorsRefactor are enabled, the legacySavePolicyCommand flow uses validators from the obsoleteAddPolicyValidators method, making this registration necessary for the policy to function correctly in production.

Findings

None - This PR correctly addresses the missing registration with no issues identified.

Analysis

Pattern Consistency ✓

The change follows the established pattern. WhenBlockClaimedDomainAccountCreationPolicyValidator was added in PR#6537, it was intentionally registered only inAddPolicyUpdateEvents (the new flow) and not in the obsoleteAddPolicyValidators method. However,AutomaticUserConfirmationPolicyEventHandler needs both registrations because:

1. It implements bothIPolicyValidator (legacy interface) andIPolicyUpdateEvent (new interface) - seePolicyServiceCollectionExtensions.cs:32
2. The legacySavePolicyCommand usesIPolicyValidator implementations until feature flags are enabled
3. The newVNextSavePolicyCommand usesIPolicyUpdateEvent implementations (already registered on line 58)

Test Coverage ✓

Comprehensive unit tests exist (AutomaticUserConfirmationPolicyEventHandlerTests.cs) covering:

• All validation scenarios (Single Org compliance, provider users, user statuses)
• Side effects (organization feature flag updates)
• Both validation interfaces (IPolicyValidator andIPolicyValidationEvent)

PR Metadata ✓

• Clear title explaining what was added
• Well-structured description with Jira references
• Accurate objective explaining why this was needed and the feature flag context
• All CI checks passing (Checkmarx, Codecov)

Good Practices Observed

• Single-line surgical fix addressing only the missing registration
• Clear commit message explaining the omission
• Feature flag awareness documented in PR description

Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details –ce98ccda-6da4-4e40-98a7-fb7c2b2a85d5

Great job! No new security vulnerabilities introduced in this pull request

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 53.06%. Comparing base (9573cab) to head (02a1b7a).

@@             Coverage Diff             @@##             main    #6637       +/-   ##===========================================+ Coverage   13.38%   53.06%   +39.68%===========================================  Files        1125     1899      +774       Lines       49593    84643    +35050       Branches     3914     7610     +3696     ===========================================+ Hits         6640    44920    +38280+ Misses      42831    37975     -4856- Partials      122     1748     +1626

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report?Share it here.