It's working OK, but honestly that may be because 1) most people don't care about licensing, even the difference between public domain, AGPL, BSD, or GPL, or frankly shareware, or even pirated; and 2) they're running from twitter so they have to go somewhere.
It may have been bit much to say "baby with bathwater", but to fix the analogy maybe I can say "Throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it's fine because you have another baby, and half as many babies ain't too bad. At least it's not zero.".
Yes. Because the way it which it mandates upstreaming means that it creates a huge liability and unclear exactly what is in scope of the mandated contributing.
E.g. real lawyers looking at it have said that if you build a web app, and it uses mongodb (AGPL) to store some state, then you may need to opensource your web app.
It's not even clear if the AGPL software needs to be in the serving path. Maybe your billing pipeline uses mongodb, and now you have to opensource your frontend?
The counter argument from AGPL proponents I've seen is almost always "Good. They should need to opensource everything on their servers. I should be able to spin up exactly what they run, on my own servers".
Even a narrower interpretation that only in-scopes your patch to make mongodb work with your in-house SSO means you need to opensource things that you don't necessarily even own.
Again, the answer from proponents is "Good, all in-house SSO should die".
Edit: although, I disagree AGPL is problematic, see my other comment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MongoDB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License
AGPL is not LGPL, so is the client library of a client/server thing enough to infect you? Probably.
If there is no client library, what's the license on the example code that you used in your app?
AGPL throws the community baby out with the bathwater.