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

Added Status badges #5253

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 15, 2019
Merged

Added Status badges #5253

merged 2 commits into from
Feb 15, 2019

Conversation

KarishmaGhiya
Copy link
Member

Description

Added Status badges for client and management APIs

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

General Guidelines

  • Title of the pull request is clear and informative.
  • There are a small number of commits, each of which have an informative message. This means that previously merged commits do not appear in the history of the PR. For more information on cleaning up the commits in your PR, see this page.

Testing Guidelines

  • Pull request includes test coverage for the included changes.

SDK Generation Guidelines

  • If an SDK is being regenerated based on a new swagger spec, a link to the pull request containing these swagger spec changes has been included above.
  • The generate.cmd file for the SDK has been updated with the version of AutoRest, as well as the commitid of your swagger spec or link to the swagger spec, used to generate the code.
  • The *.csproj and AssemblyInfo.cs files have been updated with the new version of the SDK.

@Azure/azure-sdk-eng

README.md Outdated
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
# Microsoft Azure SDK for .NET
----------

[![Build Status](https://travis-ci.org/Azure/azure-sdk-for-net.svg?branch=master)](https://travis-ci.org/Azure/azure-sdk-for-net) [![Build Status](https://dev.azure.com/azure-sdk/public/_apis/build/status/net/azure-sdk-for-net%20-%20client?branchName=master)](https://dev.azure.com/azure-sdk/public/_build/latest?definitionId=41&branchName=master)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you split this one up and label them as management and client? Similar to the java repo https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-java/pull/2605/files.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also while looking at the Java readme I noticed that the name of the build definition is part of the URL which we just changed so it is pointing at some old unknown state. According to the devops docs (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/rest/api/azure/devops/build/status/get?view=azure-devops-rest-5.0) and a quick test it appears that we can instead use definition id so can you please update this to use the id instead, as well as the other repos so we can prevent ourselves from breaking these if we change the name.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For consistency between the status badge and the link we should also include the branch name. So for this one I'd have https://dev.azure.com/azure-sdk/internal/_apis/build/status/41?branchName=master

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I just noticed this one did have the branch already but the java one didn't. We should try to make them all 4 consistent and have them use the definition id and branch name.

Copy link
Member

@scbedd scbedd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Still displays, and both links work for me.

@scbedd scbedd merged commit 08f10d1 into Azure:master Feb 15, 2019
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