Skip to content
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.

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

[Key Vault] Address administration feedback #19099

Merged
merged 24 commits into from
Jun 12, 2021
Merged

Conversation

mccoyp
Copy link
Member

@mccoyp mccoyp commented Jun 4, 2021

Summarizing changes:

  • delete methods return None, do not raise on 404
  • merge begin_selective_key_restore into begin_restore, former gains a key_name kwarg
  • begin_restore poller result is None, i.e. no longer a model
  • remove get_backup_status, get_restore_status
  • remove models KeyVaultRestoreOperation, KeyVaultSelectiveKeyRestoreOperation
  • KeyVaultBackupOperation reduced to one property, folder_url
  • removed prefixes from unambiguous name parameters
    • e.g. create_role_assignment(assignment_name=...) -> create_role_assignment(name=...)

Closes #19123

@mccoyp mccoyp added KeyVault Client This issue points to a problem in the data-plane of the library. labels Jun 4, 2021
@mccoyp mccoyp mentioned this pull request Jun 9, 2021
4 tasks
@check-enforcer
Copy link

check-enforcer bot commented Jun 9, 2021

This pull request is protected by Check Enforcer.

What is Check Enforcer?

Check Enforcer helps ensure all pull requests are covered by at least one check-run (typically an Azure Pipeline). When all check-runs associated with this pull request pass then Check Enforcer itself will pass.

Why am I getting this message?

You are getting this message because Check Enforcer did not detect any check-runs being associated with this pull request within five minutes. This may indicate that your pull request is not covered by any pipelines and so Check Enforcer is correctly blocking the pull request being merged.

What should I do now?

If the check-enforcer check-run is not passing and all other check-runs associated with this PR are passing (excluding license-cla) then you could try telling Check Enforcer to evaluate your pull request again. You can do this by adding a comment to this pull request as follows:
/check-enforcer evaluate
Typically evaulation only takes a few seconds. If you know that your pull request is not covered by a pipeline and this is expected you can override Check Enforcer using the following command:
/check-enforcer override
Note that using the override command triggers alerts so that follow-up investigations can occur (PRs still need to be approved as normal).

What if I am onboarding a new service?

Often, new services do not have validation pipelines associated with them, in order to bootstrap pipelines for a new service, you can issue the following command as a pull request comment:
/azp run prepare-pipelines
This will run a pipeline that analyzes the source tree and creates the pipelines necessary to build and validate your pull request. Once the pipeline has been created you can trigger the pipeline using the following comment:
/azp run python - [service] - ci

@chlowell chlowell marked this pull request as ready for review June 10, 2021 17:41
sdk/keyvault/azure-keyvault-administration/CHANGELOG.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
:type role_scope: str or KeyVaultRoleScope
:param role_definition_name: the unique role definition name. Unless a UUID is provided, a new role definition
:type scope: str or KeyVaultRoleScope
:keyword definition_name: the unique role definition name. Unless a UUID is provided, a new role definition
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wonder if we should shorten this to name, since it would align with the UUID name of a role assignment in create_role_assignment, and match the name argument in get_role_definition and delete_role_definition. I initially thought we should keep definition_ to differentiate it from role_name but a plain name in this context sort of implies a definition_ prefix

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Seems reasonable to me, let's give it a try.

self._name = kwargs.get("name")
self._properties = kwargs.get("properties")
self._type = kwargs.get("assignment_type")
self.name = kwargs.get("name")
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there a particular reason to move away from properties?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Member Author

@mccoyp mccoyp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

`KeyVaultAccessControlClient.create_role_assignment`, `.delete_role_assignment`,
and `.get_role_assignment`
- Renamed argument `role_definition_name` to `name` in
`KeyVaultAccessControlClient.delete_role_definition` and `.get_role_definition`

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We'll want to mention other argument renames too, like role_scope -> scope in multiple methods

@mccoyp mccoyp merged commit c52fa66 into Azure:master Jun 12, 2021
@mccoyp mccoyp deleted the roledefname branch June 12, 2021 01:16
iscai-msft added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 16, 2021
…into protocol_base

* 'master' of https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-python: (229 commits)
  Sync eng/common directory with azure-sdk-tools for PR 1688 (#19272)
  update all ubuntu vmImage to 20.04 (#19227)
  add base class for feedback (#19265)
  Enable tests for integration samples (#18531)
  docs: fix a few simple typos (#19127)
  Increment package version after release of azure-eventgrid (#19197)
  Increment package version after release of azure-monitor-query (#19208)
  earliest versions of communication identity tests are set up improperly. skip 1.0.0 in regression testing (#19258)
  Run mypy in azure-keyvault-administration CI (#19246)
  [text analytics] change return type of analyze actions to list of list (#18994)
  Increment package version after release of azure-data-tables (#19192)
  suppress min number less than 14 (#19230)
  [Key Vault] Address administration feedback (#19099)
  [textanalytics] remove warning tests (#19217)
  [translation] enable samples to run in CI (#19190)
  update custom_granularity_value to be more than 300 (#19215)
  Increment package version after release of azure-security-attestation (#19212)
  Enabling Before/After Test Customization for Standard CI Pipelines (#19187)
  bump sphinx version to resolve the weird issue with the caption not getting the correct class (#19188)
  [AutoRelease] t2-agrifood-2021-06-09-15946 (#19174)
  ...
azure-sdk pushed a commit to azure-sdk/azure-sdk-for-python that referenced this pull request Jul 8, 2022
[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.HybridCompute to add version preview/2022-05-10-preview (Azure#19099)

* Adds base for updating Microsoft.HybridCompute from version stable/2022-03-10 to version 2022-05-10-preview

* Updates readme

* Updates API version in new specs and examples

* add resources && fixed a bug

* modified resources

* added readonly tag for resources

* ran npm prettier

* suppress body top level properties

* added additional properties to properties.settings/protectedProperties

* removed additionalProperties: true

* fixed the api-version tag in the examples

* added config mode

* added additionalProperties tag'

* fixed examples and changed descriptions of machines_createOrUpdate and machines_delete

* removed osName and extensions
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Client This issue points to a problem in the data-plane of the library. KeyVault
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Resolve architects' review feedback for Key Vault
2 participants