Skip to content

Conversation

@leonardbf
Copy link
Contributor

This PR continues the addition of the new NetAppFiles service started in the PR #9387


This checklist is used to make sure that common guidelines for a pull request are followed.

  • The PR has modified HISTORY.rst describing any customer-facing, functional changes. Note that this does not include changes only to help content. (see Modifying change log).

  • I adhere to the Command Guidelines.

* NFSAAS-2316 update to R4 RP standard

* NFSAAS-2316 update to R4 RP standard
@leonardbf
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tjprescott all the items of the linked PR (the original for the ANF CLI, #9387) should be resolved with this new PR. Could this be checked and if possible merged or feedback provided? Thanks.

@leonardbf
Copy link
Contributor Author

Actually, I've just noticed a naming issue 'azure-cli-netappfiles' should now be just 'netappfiles'. Will update.

leonardbf added 26 commits June 26, 2019 09:57
* NFSAAS-2316 update to R4 RP standard

* NFSAAS-2316 update to R4 RP standard

* NFSAAS-2316 correction to path in R4 update
* NFSAAS-2316 update to R4 RP standard

* NFSAAS-2316 update to R4 RP standard

* NFSAAS-2316 correction to path in R4 update

* NFSAAS-2316 R4 update and structure change
@leonardbf
Copy link
Contributor Author

Apologies for the multiple file deletion commits. It seems the previous PRs from my local branch when relocating the netappfiles service, did not remove the old folders.

@leonardbf
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tjprescott Any chance of another check on this? It should now be converted to the new dev structure and I hope all points from the previous PR are addressed. The RP is due to be rolled out in the next few days so I hope this can be approved and merged soon. Thanks.

Copy link
Member

@tjprescott tjprescott left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There are packaging issues remaining that prevent this from being merged.

@leonardbf leonardbf requested a review from yugangw-msft June 28, 2019 09:14
* NFSAAS-2316 R4 update packaging fixes

* NFSAAS-2316 update R4 review comments
Use enum for service level
@leonardbf
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tjprescott I'm hoping all issues are now resolved. Can this be approved and merged?

leonardbf added 2 commits July 2, 2019 14:41
* NFSAAS-2316 R4 update packaging fixes

* NFSAAS-2316 update R4 review comments
Use enum for service level

* NFSAAS-2316 correction to boolean usage
* NFSAAS-2316 R4 update packaging fixes

* NFSAAS-2316 update R4 review comments
Use enum for service level

* NFSAAS-2316 correction to boolean usage

* NFSAAS-2316 update history
@leonardbf
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tjprescott Is everything now ok? This is becoming quite urgent.

* NFSAAS-2316 R4 update packaging fixes

* NFSAAS-2316 update R4 review comments
Use enum for service level

* NFSAAS-2316 correction to boolean usage

* NFSAAS-2316 update history

* NFSAAS-2316 further fixes to R4 commands
@tjprescott tjprescott added this to the Sprint 65 milestone Jul 9, 2019
@leonardbf
Copy link
Contributor Author

@yugangw-msft Any chance of a review please. Note that there is a failing lint check now on code which is unchanged. Has this changed in the CI?

@tjprescott
Copy link
Member

@leonardbf yes, the CI was updated to use a newer version of pylint. Please correct the two issue and I will merge this.

* NFSAAS-2316 R4 update packaging fixes

* NFSAAS-2316 update R4 review comments
Use enum for service level

* NFSAAS-2316 correction to boolean usage

* NFSAAS-2316 update history

* NFSAAS-2316 further fixes to R4 commands

* NFSAAS-2316 R4 fixes
@tjprescott tjprescott merged commit f6108b1 into Azure:dev Jul 9, 2019
@leonardbf
Copy link
Contributor Author

@leonardbf yes, the CI was updated to use a newer version of pylint. Please correct the two issue and I will merge this.

@tjprescott ok, updated and passing

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants