Reintroduce changes inadvertently removed

[JPrevost]

These changes were lost in a rebase and are being reintroduced to restore functionality.

Developer

Accessibility

• ANDI or WAVE has been run in accordance to our guide.
• This PR contains no changes to the view layer.
• New issues flagged by ANDI or WAVE have been resolved.
• New issues flagged by ANDI or WAVE have been ticketed (link in the Pull Request details above).
• No new accessibility issues have been flagged.

New ENV

• All new ENV is documented in README.
• All new ENV has been added to Heroku Pipeline, Staging and Prod.
• ENV has not changed.

Approval beyond code review

• UXWS/stakeholder approval has been confirmed.
• UXWS/stakeholder review will be completed retroactively.
• UXWS/stakeholder review is not needed.

Additional context needed to review

E.g., if the PR includes updated dependencies and/or data
migration, or how to confirm the feature is working.

Code Reviewer

Code

• I have confirmed that the code works as intended.
• Any CodeClimate issues have been fixed or confirmed as
  added technical debt.

Documentation

• The commit message is clear and follows our guidelines
  (not just this pull request message).
• The documentation has been updated or is unnecessary.
• New dependencies are appropriate or there were no changes.

Testing

• There are appropriate tests covering any new functionality.
• No additional test coverage is required.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 21298427359

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 98.119%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 21298275818:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	1304
Relevant Lines:	1329

---

💛 - Coveralls

[matt-bernhardt]

This matches what I see as the recent reversion, but I'm a little leery of the first change here (lines 75-76), and what the intent was. Are we seeing records that belong inside this conditional, whose kind values aren't exactly full record ?

I'm approving this, but am a little worried that I need to be taking more time to understand what the goal of those lines were.

[jazairi]

Thanks for identifying the missing code and reintroducing it!