[Tables] Migration Guide #15857
[Tables] Migration Guide #15857
Conversation
joheredi
requested review from
xirzec,
christothes,
vcolin7,
annatisch,
ellismg,
ramya-rao-a and
seankane-msft
ghost
added
the
Co-authored-by: Christopher Scott <chriscott@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Christopher Scott <chriscott@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Christopher Scott <chriscott@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Christopher Scott <chriscott@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Christopher Scott <chriscott@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Matt Ellis <matt.ellis@microsoft.com>
|
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: |
|
|
||
| ```javascript | ||
| const { TableServiceClient } = require("@azure/data-tables"); | ||
| const tableService = TableServiceClient.fromConnectionString("<connection-string>"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wow. I didnt know that we had a static method for constructing the client from connection string. There was pushback against this model when we were working on Event Hubs. Do you recall the reason for this rather than rely on a constructor overload?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the main reason is that it is hard hard to disambiguate with the other constructor overloads (last one is a collision)
Plus storage has this model as well
|
/azp run js - tables - ci |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.Security to add version preview/2021-07-01-preview (Azure#15857) * Adds base for updating Microsoft.Security from version preview/2021-05-01-preview to version 2021-07-01-preview * Updates readme * Updates API version in new specs and examples * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * .
No description provided.