Addressed comments for immutable storage with versioning #22388
Conversation
gapra-msft
requested review from
alzimmermsft,
amishra-dev,
jaschrep-msft,
kasobol-msft and
rickle-msft
as code owners
ghost
added
the
| return hasLegalHold; | ||
| } | ||
| public interface BlobLegalHoldResult { | ||
| boolean hasLegalHold(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should this have javadoc?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah. Let me add that back
| // Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. | ||
| // Licensed under the MIT License. | ||
|
|
||
| package com.azure.storage.blob.implementation.models; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have a concern with putting handwritten models in a package where generated code lives. Any thoughts about that? @kasobol-msft
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ideally we'd have com.azure.storage.blob.implementation.generated.* for everything generated.
or have "hadwriten.models" :-). For this PR we can mix them, but it would be good to sit down and do some cleanup in implementation pacakge.
|
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: 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: |
|
/check-enforcer evaluate |
|
/azp run java - storage - ci |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
* Set up STG78 branch (#21634) * Generated off latest version of blob swagger (#21644) * Reenabled quick query parquet support (#21785) * Implemented Immutable Storage with Versioning (#21718) * File listing v2 (#21720) * swagger generation and hookup regenerated files swagger for listing hooked up generated and handwritten models expanded client API to support new models * testing and fixes expanded test parameters for file listing. swagger transform added. * rerecorded file listing test * more testing also fixed a method name casing * docstrings and samples * checkstyle * reverted primative boolean extended info arg REST api accepts true or an absence of value. Alligning with .NET for now on Boolean vs boolean. * checkpoint * pr feedback * misused variable fix * fixed test * send nothing, not false: include-extended-info other minor fixes rerecorded tests * import cleanup * swagger regeneration and test fixes * API comments extendedInfo boolean => Boolean renamed options class * reidentified samples for options class name change Co-authored-by: jschrepp-MSFT <41338290+jschrepp-MSFT@users.noreply.github.com> * Fix test. * Implemented list deleted root blob with versions (#21996) * Addressed comments for immutable storage with versioning (#22388) * Develop on main, part 1 (#22451) * move back service version. * pin CI. * fix ci. * fix ci ? * fix live tests ? * use latest service version to filter if not specified in variable. * use latest service version to filter if not specified in variable. * does this work ?? * missing stuff. * move that piece to parent as well. * rollback yml changes in favor of pom.xml * fix build ? * how about this ? * more ? * not this. * rollback some. * does this work ?? Co-authored-by: Gauri Prasad <51212198+gapra-msft@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: gapra <gapra@microsoft.com> Co-authored-by: James <41338290+jaschrep-msft@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: jschrepp-MSFT <41338290+jschrepp-MSFT@users.noreply.github.com>
PR comments from #21718