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

{storage-preview} Add hns soft delete #2877

Merged
merged 24 commits into from
May 31, 2021
Merged

{storage-preview} Add hns soft delete #2877

merged 24 commits into from
May 31, 2021

Conversation

Juliehzl
Copy link
Contributor

@Juliehzl Juliehzl commented Jan 8, 2021


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

General Guidelines

  • Have you run azdev style <YOUR_EXT> locally? (pip install azdev required)
  • Have you run python scripts/ci/test_index.py -q locally?

For new extensions:

About Extension Publish

There is a pipeline to automatically build, upload and publish extension wheels.
Once your PR is merged into master branch, a new PR will be created to update src/index.json automatically.
The precondition is to put your code inside this repo and upgrade the version in the PR but do not modify src/index.json.

@yonzhan
Copy link
Collaborator

yonzhan commented Jan 8, 2021

storage-preview

Comment on lines +40 to +42
if pages.continuation_token:
next_marker = {"nextMarker": pages.continuation_token}
result.append(next_marker)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I noticed that in main repo, we add next_marker to result or warning message according to --show-next-marker. Why we don't need such parameter and just make adding to result as default behavior?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

as warning message is legacy method, to not break customer, we still keep it. Adding next marker in result will give customer better experience to get the marker value instead of parsing stderr.

Copy link
Member

@evelyn-ys evelyn-ys left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

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