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

[Re-open of #6422] Introducing subAssessments type (Microsoft.Security provider) #7101

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Sep 26, 2019

Conversation

himarkov
Copy link
Contributor

@himarkov himarkov commented Sep 2, 2019

Latest improvements:

MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.

Contribution checklist:

  • I have reviewed the documentation for the workflow.
  • Validation tools were run on swagger spec(s) and have all been fixed in this PR.
  • The OpenAPI Hub was used for checking validation status and next steps.

ARM API Review Checklist

  • Service team MUST add the "WaitForARMFeedback" label if the management plane API changes fall into one of the below categories.
  • adding/removing APIs.
  • adding/removing properties.
  • adding/removing API-version.
  • adding a new service in Azure.

Failure to comply may result in delays for manifest application. Note this does not apply to data plane APIs.

  • If you are blocked on ARM review and want to get the PR merged urgently, please get the ARM oncall for reviews (RP Manifest Approvers team under Azure Resource Manager service) from IcM and reach out to them.
    Please follow the link to find more details on API review process.

@openapi-sdkautomation
Copy link

openapi-sdkautomation bot commented Sep 2, 2019

In Testing, Please Ignore

[Logs] (Generated from edb4eee, Iteration 19)

Failed .NET: test-repo-billy/azure-sdk-for-net [Logs] [Diff]
In-Progress Go: test-repo-billy/azure-sdk-for-go [Logs] [Diff]
  • In-Progress preview/security/mgmt/v1.0 [Logs]
  • In-Progress preview/security/mgmt/v2.0 [Logs]
  • In-Progress preview/security/mgmt/v3.0 [Logs]
Succeeded Python: test-repo-billy/azure-sdk-for-python [Logs] [Diff]
Failed JavaScript: test-repo-billy/azure-sdk-for-js [Logs] [Diff]

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Sep 2, 2019

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

A PR has been created for you based on this PR content.

Once this PR will be merged, content will be added to your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-python#7377

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Sep 2, 2019

Automation for azure-sdk-for-go

A PR has been created for you based on this PR content.

Once this PR will be merged, content will be added to your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-go#5863

@azuresdkci
Copy link
Contributor

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@himarkov
Copy link
Contributor Author

himarkov commented Sep 2, 2019

Reopen of signed off PR (with paths change)
#6422

@himarkov himarkov changed the title [DoNotMerge] Introducing subAssessments type (Microsoft.Security provider) [DoNotMerge] [Re-open of #6422] Introducing subAssessments type (Microsoft.Security provider) Sep 2, 2019
Copy link
Member

@ArcturusZhang ArcturusZhang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

When will this pr be ready?

@himarkov himarkov changed the title [DoNotMerge] [Re-open of #6422] Introducing subAssessments type (Microsoft.Security provider) [Re-open of #6422] Introducing subAssessments type (Microsoft.Security provider) Sep 10, 2019
@chlahav chlahav added WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required DoNotMerge <valid label in PR review process> use to hold merge after approval labels Sep 10, 2019
@pilor pilor added the ARMChangesRequested <valid label in PR review process>add this label when require changes after ARM review label Sep 10, 2019
@himarkov
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi, this pr is ready on our end

@pilor pilor removed the ARMChangesRequested <valid label in PR review process>add this label when require changes after ARM review label Sep 11, 2019
@pilor pilor added ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review and removed WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Sep 11, 2019
@pilor pilor added ARMChangesRequested <valid label in PR review process>add this label when require changes after ARM review WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required and removed ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review labels Sep 11, 2019
@himarkov
Copy link
Contributor Author

himarkov commented Sep 11, 2019 via email

@pilor pilor added ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review and removed ARMChangesRequested <valid label in PR review process>add this label when require changes after ARM review WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Sep 13, 2019
@ArcturusZhang
Copy link
Member

Hi @himarkov I approved these changes for now. When this is ready to merge, please let me know. If this is not going to get ready for short, I suggest to close this pr, and open a new one when this is ready to merge

@himarkov
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi, this is ready to be merged.
Thanks.

@ArcturusZhang ArcturusZhang removed the DoNotMerge <valid label in PR review process> use to hold merge after approval label Sep 26, 2019
@ArcturusZhang ArcturusZhang merged commit 87bf8b3 into Azure:master Sep 26, 2019
@ArcturusZhang
Copy link
Member

Hi, this is ready to be merged.
Thanks.

Merged

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants