1. Show Restricted Access status and inform about ... (gitlab#580284)
2. Send notification when protocol-provisioned use... (gitlab#580421)

@lwanko let me know if you'd like me to take one these if that would help!

For convenience, the SCIM config locations we were discussing:

GitLab.com group	Self-managed instance

Also curious to know @erhan.dsilva's thoughts on the UX for including a warning here 👀

Hi @paulobarros thanks for working on this. I may have gotten turned around in where we landed with this in the previous MR, so I just have one question for your review 🏓

question: if net-ldap handles codes 3/4 as successful searches and returns partial results (not nil), then check_empty_response_code is never called. Which means partial results would still flow through to the sync and cause members to be removed from the group.

Wouldn't we not want this to happen since the search is incomplete? How does removing codes 3 and 4 address this scenario? Or am I misunderstanding how net-ldap handles these codes 😅

Similarly, uncoverage is reporting missing branch coverage in method_missing and respond_to_missing? methods in the spec.

Similarly, we'll need to add coverage for these cases here.

We have a few uncovered branches in the spec.

Looks like we're missing coverage for the fallback state, we can add a test similar to this one that passes some unknown state as params.

@JonstonChan thank you for this contribution 🎉

These changes look good, but I notice we have some undercoverage that can be addressed before this MR reaches the pipelinetier-3, then the undercoverage will become blocking.

Ping me for re-review when the updated specs are ready, or if you are needing any help with this!

Why is this change being made?

This MR fixes broken links on the Communication page

Author and Reviewer Checklist

Please verify the check list and ensure to tick them off before the MR is merged.

• Provided a concise title for this Merge Request (MR)
• Added a description to this MR explaining the reasons for the proposed change, per say why, not just what
  • Copy/paste the Slack conversation to document it for later, or upload screenshots. Verify that no confidential data is added, and the content is SAFE
• Assign reviewers for this MR to the correct
  • The when to get approval handbook section explains when DRI approval is required
  • The who can approve handbook section explains how to identify the DRI
  • If the MR does not require DRI approval, consider asking someone on your team, such as your manager.
  • The approver may merge the MR. If they approve but don't merge, you can merge.
• For transparency, share this MR with the audience that will be impacted.
  • Team: For changes that affect your direct team, share in your group Slack channel
  • Department: If the update affects your department, share the MR in your department Slack channel
  • Division: If the update affects your division, share the MR in your division Slack channel
  • Company: If the update affects all (or the majority of) GitLab team members, post an update in #whats-happening-at-gitlab linking to this MR
    • For high-priority company-wide announcements work with the internal communications team to post the update in #company-fyi and align on a plan to circulate in additional channels like the "While You Were Iterating" Newsletter

Commits

• Fix broken links in communication

---

@sandrato nice catch, thanks for updating these links 🎉

@drogozinski looks like you're the owner for the Communication page, would you mind giving this a look and merging if all looks good? Thanks!

What does this MR do and why?

Eliminates duplicated search_level validation in ee/lib/search/elastic/filters.rb by refactoring by_search_level_and_membership and by_search_level_and_group_membership to use the existing private fetch_search_level! helper.

What changed

Both public methods previously contained 3-line inline validation blocks that duplicated the logic already encapsulated in fetch_search_level!. Each inline block has been replaced with a single call to the helper.

References

• #593216

Screenshots or screen recordings

Before	After

How to set up and validate locally

No new test cases are needed. The behaviour is identical — the same ArgumentError messages are raised for the same invalid inputs. Existing specs in ee/spec/lib/search/elastic/filters_spec.rb cover these error paths and continue to pass without modification.

Note: gdk must have elasticsearch enabled to run the specs

MR acceptance checklist

Evaluate this MR against the MR acceptance checklist. It helps you analyze changes to reduce risks in quality, performance, reliability, security, and maintainability.