Skip to content

{Storage} az storage share-rm: Add process_resource_group for resource group #12232

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
Juliehzl merged 3 commits into from
Feb 18, 2020
Merged

{Storage} az storage share-rm: Add process_resource_group for resource group #12232

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
2f4557e
add validator=process_resource_group
Juliehzl Feb 17, 2020
f25e6d0
refine storage account validator
Juliehzl Feb 17, 2020
cb51bd9
add more validate
Juliehzl Feb 17, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/azure-cli/azure/cli/command_modules/storage/_params.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -663,7 +663,7 @@ def load_arguments(self, _): # pylint: disable=too-many-locals, too-many-statem

for item in ['create', 'delete', 'exists', 'list', 'show', 'update']:
with self.argument_context('storage share-rm {}'.format(item), resource_type=ResourceType.MGMT_STORAGE) as c:
c.argument('resource_group_name', required=False)
c.argument('resource_group_name', required=False, validator=process_resource_group)
c.argument('account_name', storage_account_type)

@jsntcy jsntcy Feb 17, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

storage_account_type already adds validator to parse for resource group name.

@jsntcy jsntcy Feb 17, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it better to add the logic to validator for storage_account_type instead of another validator?

c.argument('share_name', share_name_type, options_list=('--name', '-n'), id_part='child_name_2')
c.argument('share_quota', type=int, options_list='--quota')
Expand Down