Skip to content

Conversation

@xizha162
Copy link
Contributor

Merge Agent pool API from dev branch to master

The change is already approved in this PR:
#5352

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.

Xiaofang Zhang and others added 8 commits February 4, 2019 15:05
…w/2018-08-01-preview to version 2019-02-01
…5156)

* including orchestratorVersion and provisioning state for agent pool

* fixing the readme.go.md

* including enablePodSecurityPoliy properties for managedcluster and updating examples

* fixing the example for enablePodSecurityPolicy
* including apiServerAuthorizedIPRanges

* support azure network policy
* mark the new features as PREVIEW

* mark vmss as required for az
* copy 2018-08-01-preview folder to 2019-02-01 without changes

* implementing agentpool api in 2019-02-01

* fixing minor api-version errors

* fixing the agentpool list operation paths

* fixing the agentpool example

* add default response

* including name validation
@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Mar 15, 2019

Automation for azure-sdk-for-js

A PR has been created for you:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-js#1599

@azuresdkci azuresdkci requested a review from praries880 March 15, 2019 20:34
@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Mar 15, 2019

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

A PR has been created for you:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-python#4587

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Mar 15, 2019

Automation for azure-sdk-for-ruby

A PR has been created for you:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-ruby#2300

@azuresdkci
Copy link
Contributor

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Mar 15, 2019

Automation for azure-sdk-for-node

A PR has been created for you:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-node#4934

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Mar 15, 2019

Automation for azure-sdk-for-java

A PR has been created for you:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-java#3072

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Mar 15, 2019

Automation for azure-sdk-for-go

A PR has been created for you:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-go#4240

@xizha162
Copy link
Contributor Author

@praries880, please let me know the correct process to solve the merge conflict. I don't have write permission to Azure: dev-containerservice-Microsoft.ContainerService-2019-02-01 branch so not sure how to solve the conflict.

So I did the merge and solved the conflict in my private repo xizhamsft: dev-containerservice-Microsoft.ContainerService-2019-02-01 and then sent out a new PR to merge xizhamsft: dev-containerservice-Microsoft.ContainerService-2019-02-01 ->Azure: dev-containerservice-Microsoft.ContainerService-2019-02-01 in PR:#5402

Hopefully once 5402 is merged, 5399 will be updated automatically without the merge conflict

Please let me know if I am doing this the correct way, we need this merged ASAP

@xizha162
Copy link
Contributor Author

will try again.

@xizha162 xizha162 closed this Mar 15, 2019
@FumingZhang FumingZhang deleted the dev-containerservice-Microsoft.ContainerService-2019-02-01 branch February 26, 2024 05:34
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.

6 participants