-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4k
[Compute] Update Compute management client library to 20.0.0 #6394
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
Conversation
@hyonholee Hey Hyonho, would you mind taking a look at the build errors after we merged in the latest from the |
@@ -70,6 +70,11 @@ function Test-AvailabilitySet | |||
$job = Remove-AzureRmAvailabilitySet -ResourceGroupName $rgname -Name $asetName -Force -AsJob; | |||
$result = $job | Wait-Job; | |||
Assert-AreEqual "Completed" $result.State; | |||
$st = $job | Receive-Job; | |||
[System.Guid]::Parse($st.RequestId); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is this here for the side-effects? should we wrap it up in an assert to check that it does not throw?
{ | ||
param ($result) | ||
|
||
[System.Guid]::Parse($result.OperationId); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is this here for the side-effects? should we wrap it up in an assert to check that it does not throw?
{ | ||
param ($result) | ||
|
||
[System.Guid]::Parse($result.Name); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is this here for the side-effects? should we wrap it up in an assert to check that it does not throw?
…nto june # Conflicts: # src/ResourceManager/Compute/Commands.Compute.Test/ScenarioTests/AEMExtensionTests.cs
@cormacpayne @praries880 I resolved merge conflict and updated the PR to address the comment. |
@@ -18,6 +18,10 @@ | |||
- Additional information about change #1 | |||
--> | |||
## Current Release | |||
* Update Compute client library version to fix following cmdlets | |||
- Grant-AzureRmDisk |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this Grant-AzureRMDiskAccess?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A nit-pick.. otherwise LGTM
…failing in NETSTANDARD.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It looks like there is a substantial amount of added code thatr is not used anywhere. Also, there are ambiguous changes in the method calss, so that it looks like, for some methods the writeobject call is removed
@@ -79,8 +79,7 @@ protected void ExecuteVirtualMachineRestartMethod(object[] invokeMethodInputPara | |||
string resourceGroupName = (string)ParseParameter(invokeMethodInputParameters[0]); | |||
string vmName = (string)ParseParameter(invokeMethodInputParameters[1]); | |||
|
|||
var result = VirtualMachinesClient.Restart(resourceGroupName, vmName); | |||
WriteObject(result); | |||
VirtualMachinesClient.Restart(resourceGroupName, vmName); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems like a breaking change, is this value written elsewhere?
@@ -79,8 +79,7 @@ protected void ExecuteVirtualMachineRedeployMethod(object[] invokeMethodInputPar | |||
string resourceGroupName = (string)ParseParameter(invokeMethodInputParameters[0]); | |||
string vmName = (string)ParseParameter(invokeMethodInputParameters[1]); | |||
|
|||
var result = VirtualMachinesClient.Redeploy(resourceGroupName, vmName); | |||
WriteObject(result); | |||
VirtualMachinesClient.Redeploy(resourceGroupName, vmName); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems like a breaking change, is this written elsewhere?
@@ -79,8 +79,7 @@ protected void ExecuteVirtualMachinePowerOffMethod(object[] invokeMethodInputPar | |||
string resourceGroupName = (string)ParseParameter(invokeMethodInputParameters[0]); | |||
string vmName = (string)ParseParameter(invokeMethodInputParameters[1]); | |||
|
|||
var result = VirtualMachinesClient.PowerOff(resourceGroupName, vmName); | |||
WriteObject(result); | |||
VirtualMachinesClient.PowerOff(resourceGroupName, vmName); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
breaking change
@@ -79,8 +79,7 @@ protected void ExecuteVirtualMachinePerformMaintenanceMethod(object[] invokeMeth | |||
string resourceGroupName = (string)ParseParameter(invokeMethodInputParameters[0]); | |||
string vmName = (string)ParseParameter(invokeMethodInputParameters[1]); | |||
|
|||
var result = VirtualMachinesClient.PerformMaintenance(resourceGroupName, vmName); | |||
WriteObject(result); | |||
VirtualMachinesClient.PerformMaintenance(resourceGroupName, vmName); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
breaking change?
@@ -79,8 +79,7 @@ protected void ExecuteVirtualMachineGeneralizeMethod(object[] invokeMethodInputP | |||
string resourceGroupName = (string)ParseParameter(invokeMethodInputParameters[0]); | |||
string vmName = (string)ParseParameter(invokeMethodInputParameters[1]); | |||
|
|||
var result = VirtualMachinesClient.Generalize(resourceGroupName, vmName); | |||
WriteObject(result); | |||
VirtualMachinesClient.Generalize(resourceGroupName, vmName); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
breaking change?
@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@ | |||
// | |||
// Copyright (c) Microsoft and contributors. All rights reserved. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
what is this for?
@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@ | |||
// | |||
// Copyright (c) Microsoft and contributors. All rights reserved. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this needed?
@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@ | |||
// |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
WHat is this for?
@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@ | |||
// |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
what is this for?
{ | ||
public class PSOperationStatusResponse | ||
{ | ||
public string Name { get; set; } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
did this not exist before? Are all the properties of the previous output type included?
It looks like there are a lot of unnecessary changes in this PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See my comments - if we can remove the files that look as though they are unused, and verify that removing the WriteObject calls does not result in a breaking change, then this should be OK.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
wenWnet over changes with Hyonho, approving
I'm also getting the null AccessSAS value on the Grant-AzureRmDiskAccess cmdlet. I've upgraded the AzureRM module to version 6.8.1. What do I need to do to apply the change from @hyonholee ? |
#5956
JeffBow/AzurePowerShell#15
Description
Checklist
CONTRIBUTING.md
platyPS
module