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

strict sphinx purview-workflow #36118

Closed

Conversation

kristapratico
Copy link
Member

Resolves #33592

@azure-sdk
Copy link
Collaborator

API change check

API changes are not detected in this pull request.

)
response = pipeline_response.http_response

if response.status_code not in [200]:
if _stream:
await response.read() # Load the body in memory and close the socket
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this now happening somewhere else?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@iscai-msft do you know the reason for the change in the generated operations here?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

hmm that's interesting, let me take a look at this. We had removed this logic for stream-only operations, but I think this got overshot. Let me work on this today

Copy link
Member

@msyyc msyyc Jun 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@annatisch @kristapratico @iscai-msft It is expected since _stream is always "False" therefore no need to judge it:

image

Context:
The logic is introduced in Azure/autorest.python#2628 and ever discussed here: Azure/autorest.python#2589 (comment) and Azure/autorest.python#2589 (comment)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

forgot to respond in this issue, but I believe this issue got resolved, is that correct @kristapratico?

Copy link

Hi @kristapratico. Thank you for your interest in helping to improve the Azure SDK experience and for your contribution. We've noticed that there hasn't been recent engagement on this pull request. If this is still an active work stream, please let us know by pushing some changes or leaving a comment. Otherwise, we'll close this out in 7 days.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the no-recent-activity There has been no recent activity on this issue. label Aug 30, 2024
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 6, 2024

Hi @kristapratico. Thank you for your contribution. Since there hasn't been recent engagement, we're going to close this out. Feel free to respond with a comment containing /reopen if you'd like to continue working on these changes. Please be sure to use the command to reopen or remove the no-recent-activity label; otherwise, this is likely to be closed again with the next cleanup pass.

@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Sep 6, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
no-recent-activity There has been no recent activity on this issue. Purview
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

azure-purview-workflow needs docstring updates for sphinx
5 participants