I think the aim of the ticket is to remove the suggestion to use LazyObject altogether. (I don't know if there's a possible suggestion we can replace it with.)

If we are to remove it, we would need to reopen ticket-36504

Essentially what the example was hoping to do was to mimic how default_storage storage works (which is working in the test). I made a note that we needed to test my suggestion and then I assumed it was tested 🤦

Essentially what the example was hoping to do was to mimic how default_storage storage works (which is working in the test).

Did a bit of digging and I figured out why it doesn't work: The signal that resets storages’ cached value when settings change only does it explicitly for default_storage and staticfiles_storage

So maybe we may close this ticket by adding a custom signal receiver to the section added in #19349? WDYT

something like:

@receiver(setting_changed)
def reset_other_storage(*, setting, **kwargs):
    if setting in ("STORAGES",):
        other_storage._wrapped = empty

That's a great idea 👏

Friendly reminder @khosro-web, when you have updated the PR per the discussions in the review, and are ready for another review, please update the ticket flags in Trac, per these docs, specifically, you need to uncheck "Patch needs improvement"