Conversation
Collaborator
|
Role |
evelyn-ys
approved these changes
Apr 6, 2021
Member
Author
Sorry I didn't really get your question. According to 5544a0f, this fix has been included since This failure is due to AAD service propagation and I don't think AAD has a plan to refine/fix it, so the retry logic will be necessary. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Fix #14767
The retry-able check logic is firstly added by #1499:
azure-cli/src/command_modules/azure-cli-role/azure/cli/command_modules/role/custom.py
Line 492 in f0dcfcf
It was later changed by #2567 (not sure why the change):
azure-cli/src/command_modules/azure-cli-role/azure/cli/command_modules/role/custom.py
Line 508 in 67d44a1
This PR simply adds another retry-able check for
just like what microsoft/onefuzz#716 does.
Testing Guide
With new Knack (microsoft/knack#228):
Additional Context
As #2567 (review) pointed out, this is indeed very ugly.