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

feat: Remove unused PSRule custom rule for Azure Storage replication #2712

Merged

Conversation

sebassem
Copy link
Contributor

The PSRule custom rule for Azure Storage replication has been removed as it is no longer needed as it was updated in Upstream.

Description

Pipeline Reference

Pipeline
avm.res.load-test-service.load-test

Type of Change

  • Update to CI Environment or utilities (Non-module affecting changes)
  • Azure Verified Module updates:
    • Bugfix containing backwards-compatible bug fixes, and I have NOT bumped the MAJOR or MINOR version in version.json:
      • Someone has opened a bug report issue, and I have included "Closes #{bug_report_issue_number}" in the PR description.
      • The bug was found by the module author, and no one has opened an issue to report it yet.
    • Feature update backwards compatible feature updates, and I have bumped the MINOR version in version.json.
    • Breaking changes and I have bumped the MAJOR version in version.json.
    • Update to documentation

Checklist

  • I'm sure there are no other open Pull Requests for the same update/change
  • I have run Set-AVMModule locally to generate the supporting module files.
  • My corresponding pipelines / checks run clean and green without any errors or warnings

The PSRule custom rule for Azure Storage replication has been removed as it is no longer needed. This change improves the efficiency of the static validation pipeline.

Co-authored-by: Felipe Binotto <[email protected]>
@sebassem sebassem requested a review from a team as a code owner July 14, 2024 11:28
@microsoft-github-policy-service microsoft-github-policy-service bot added the Needs: Triage 🔍 Maintainers need to triage still label Jul 14, 2024

Important

The "Needs: Triage 🔍" label must be removed once the triage process is complete!

Tip

For additional guidance on how to triage this issue/PR, see the BRM Issue Triage documentation.

@microsoft-github-policy-service microsoft-github-policy-service bot added the Type: AVM 🅰️ ✌️ Ⓜ️ This is an AVM related issue label Jul 14, 2024

Important

If this is a module-related PR, being submitted by the sole owner of the module, the AVM core team must review and approve it (as module owners can't approve their own PRs).

To indicate this PR needs the core team''s attention, apply the "Needs: Core Team 🧞" label!

The core team will only review and approve PRs that have this label applied!

@AlexanderSehr
Copy link
Contributor

AlexanderSehr commented Jul 15, 2024

Hey @eriqua, can you take this one? When it comes to PSRule I trust you more than me 😄

@eriqua
Copy link
Contributor

eriqua commented Jul 16, 2024

Hey @eriqua, can you take this one? When it comes to PSRule I trust you more than me 😄

@sebassem thanks, these are my favourite PRs, the ones removing unused code 😄 Thanks for fixing the PSRule rule in the background

Copy link
Contributor

@eriqua eriqua left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🆗

@eriqua eriqua added Needs: Core Team 🧞 This item needs the AVM Core Team to review it Type: CI 🚀 This issue is related to the AVM CI and removed Needs: Triage 🔍 Maintainers need to triage still labels Jul 16, 2024
@eriqua eriqua merged commit 9ce1720 into Azure:main Jul 16, 2024
10 checks passed
@AlexanderSehr AlexanderSehr deleted the avm-psrule-revert-storage.replication-rule branch July 17, 2024 06:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Needs: Core Team 🧞 This item needs the AVM Core Team to review it Type: AVM 🅰️ ✌️ Ⓜ️ This is an AVM related issue Type: CI 🚀 This issue is related to the AVM CI
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants