[workshop-update] Fix workshop destroy-lifecycle content drift and close glossary gaps
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 2 giorni
Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.
Valutazione
- Difficoltà
- 2/5
- Tempo stimato
- 1-3 ore
- Idoneità per principianti
- 1/100
- Tipo di issue
- Documentazione
- Chiarezza
- Specificata chiaramente
- Stato di attività
- Attiva
- Stack tecnologico
- azure, markdown
- Ambito
- documentation
Direzione di ricerca
The proposed edits name workshops/track-3-platform-engineering/lab-06-destroy-lifecycle.md, workshops/track-2-deploy-like-a-pro/lab-05-drift-detection.md, workshops/shared/glossary.md, and two other lab files. Start by reviewing the pushed branch workshop-coverage-update-20261012-210252-5ca1f483ca300842 against main and check the referenced skill guidance. The changes are ready for review and a pull request, so this issue's work is already underway.
Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.
Descrizione
[!TIP]
Your pull request is ready to create! 🎉 ✅Everything is OK—the changes have been pushed to branch
workshop-coverage-update-20261012-210252-5ca1f483ca300842. Please review the changes, including any protected files, before creating the pull request.The original pull request description is below.
Weekly workshop coverage pass. This re-applies content fixes from a prior run (#392) whose PR was never opened due to an Actions permissions block ("GitHub Actions is not permitted to create or approve pull requests") — the underlying content drift is still live on main, confirmed by re-reading the current lab files before making any change.
Changes, per feature
1. Track 3 Lab 6 ("Destroy Lifecycle") — internal contradiction, now fixed
workshops/track-3-platform-engineering/lab-06-destroy-lifecycle.md
Steps 1-5 described the old per-resource-group destroy flow (read RG name → inventory → delete subscription-scoped resources → delete RG), while Steps 6-8 (appended in a later pass) correctly describe the current Azure Deployment Stack flow (az stack sub delete --action-on-unmanage deleteAll). These directly contradicted each other. Rewrote Step 4 to describe the stack-based flow consistently, and removed the now-duplicated Step 7 (keeping the destroy-contract and idempotency notes that weren't stated elsewhere).
- Persona/track: DevOps/SRE / Track 3 — the audience that runs the CI destroy workflow and needs an accurate mental model of what it does.
2. az group delete anti-pattern in cleanup sections — now fixed
workshops/track-2-deploy-like-a-pro/lab-05-drift-detection.md, workshops/track-3-platform-engineering/lab-06-destroy-lifecycle.md
Both labs told attendees to clean up with a raw az group delete. The azure-stack-destroy SKILL.md explicitly flags this as wrong for Git-Ape-managed deployments — it skips the soft-delete purge sweep (Key Vault, Cognitive Services linger 7-90 days) and misses subscription-scope resources (role/policy assignments) a stack can own. Replaced both call sites with /azure-stack-destroy, the same primitive the CI destroy workflow uses, and limited az group delete to resource groups created outside Git-Ape.
- Persona/track: Engineer / Track 2 and DevOps / Track 3.
3. azure-stack-deploy / azure-stack-destroy skills — glossary gap closed
workshops/shared/glossary.md
Both skills had 0 refs in workshops/ per the coverage inventory. The behaviour is already lab-covered through @git-ape's deploy/destroy flow and the fix above, so rather than invent a new lab I added glossary entries mapping the CLI primitive attendees already see to the skill name that drives it.
- Persona/track: Engineer / Track 2, DevOps / Track 3.
4. azure-requirements-gatherer agent — glossary gap closed
workshops/shared/glossary.md
0 refs by exact agent-slug match in the inventory, but extensively covered under its display name "Requirements Gatherer" in Track 1/2 labs, demo scripts, and the Track 2 deck — a false-positive from the grep-proxy inventory, confirmed by reading the actual content. Added it to the glossary's agent table (the one agent missing there).
- Persona/track: Beginner / Track 1, Engineer / Track 2.
5. azure-resource-availability skill — named explicitly
workshops/track-1-zero-to-deploy/lab-02-first-deploy.md
The behaviour (region/runtime/provider/CAF-name checks) was already described in Lab 2 Step 3, but the skill was never named. Naming-only fix, no content invented.
- Persona/track: Beginner / Track 1.
6. azure-rest-api-reference skill — citation added
workshops/track-2-deploy-like-a-pro/lab-02-web-app-sql.md
0 refs. This is an internal correctness tool the Template Generator uses before writing ARM resources, not something attendees invoke directly in any lab today. Added a "Going further" citation rather than inventing a new lab section, since there's no attendee-facing behaviour to ground a dedicated lab in yet. Flagged in the coverage-status issue as optional future work for a human to decide on.
- Persona/track: Engineer / Track 2 (tentative — see coverage issue for the ambiguity note).
Guardrails confirmed
- No lab timing changed (Track 1 still 30 min total, Track 2 60 min, Track 3 unchanged, Track 4 untouched).
- No-Azure fallback paths untouched (Track 1 Lab 2's review-only path is intact).
- No rendered binaries (
*.pdf,*.pptx,*.html) touched — only.mdlab/glossary files. - No deck source (
*_deck.md) edited, so the L1/L11/L15 deck lint rules don't apply to this PR. - No files outside
workshops/touched. - Every described command/behaviour (
az stack sub delete --action-on-unmanage deleteAll, the availability-check APIs, the glossary skill descriptions) is verified against the actual skillSKILL.mdsources, not invented.
Links
- Coverage-status issue: see the
[workshop-coverage]issue opened alongside this PR for the full gap table and persona reasoning. - Supersedes the unopened PR referenced in
#392(same content fixes, blocked there by an Actions permissions error, not a content issue).
Closes#392
[!NOTE]
GitHub Actions is not permitted to create or approve pull requests in this repository.
The changes have been pushed to branch
workshop-coverage-update-20261012-210252-5ca1f483ca300842and are ready to review.
To fix the permissions issue, go to Settings → Actions → General and enable Allow GitHub Actions to create and approve pull requests. See also: gh-aw FAQ
Show patch preview (38 of 169 lines)
From 3617cedbecae9a6c732daf283999b3977c5e8b00 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
X-GH-AW-Base-Commit: 22eb640212083c06dc3450c1d55f3cbfc411f25a
From: "github-actions[bot]" <github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 21:02:58 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] workshop: fix stale az group delete destroy guidance, close
azure-stack-deploy/destroy coverage gap
- Track 3 Lab 6 and Track 2 Lab 5 described/recommended raw 'az group delete'
for teardown, which contradicts the azure-stack-destroy skill's explicit
guardrail (misses soft-delete purge and subscription-scope resources).
Replaced with the /azure-stack-destroy skill, matching the same
az stack sub delete --action-on-unmanage deleteAll primitive the CI
destroy workflow uses.
- Track 3 Lab 6 Steps 1-5 described the old per-resource-group destroy flow
while Steps 6-8 (appended later) described the stack-based flow -
resolved the contradiction so the lab consistently teaches the current
Deployment Stack based destroy lifecycle.
- Added azure-stack-deploy and azure-stack-destroy skills, and the
Requirements Gatherer agent, to workshops/shared/glossary.md (0 refs
previously, per workshop inventory).
- Cited azure-resource-availability explicitly in Track 1 Lab 2 Step 3
(the step already describes its behaviour but never named the skill)
and azure-rest-api-reference in Track 2 Lab 2 Going Further.
Co-authored-by: Copilot <[email protected]>
---
workshops/shared/glossary.md | 3 ++
.../lab-02-first-deploy.md | 2 +-
.../lab-02-web-app-sql.md | 1 +
.../lab-05-drift-detection.md | 4 +-
.../lab-06-destroy-lifecycle.md | 45 +++++--------------
5 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
diff --git a/workshops/shared/glossary.md b/workshops/shared/glossary.md
index 48cf741..ead895b 100644
--- a/workshops/shared/glossary.md
+++ b/workshops/shared/glossary.md
@@ -28,6 +28,7
... (truncated)
Generated by Workshop Content Auto-Updater · copilot · auto · 140.3 AIC · ⌖ 8.86 AIC · ⊞ 12K · ◷
- Lingua principale
- JavaScript
- Stelle
- 270
- Fork
- 48
- Merge medio
- 2g 15h
- PR unite (30g)
- 18
Preparare l'ambiente
Avvia il container di sviluppo del progetto nel browser, con il tuo account GitHub.
- Nessun Dockerfile né file Docker Compose
- Nessun modello di pull request
- Leggi la guida per i contributori
Come iniziare
- Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
- Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
- Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
- Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.
Altre issue di Azure/git-ape
-
daily-status report
Difficoltà 1/5 Meno di un'ora Idoneità per principianti 10/100
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 2 giorni
-
report workshop-coverage
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 20/100
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 2 giorni
-
feat: Native Intent → Execution → Evidence foundation with optional ISEE governanceForse già presa @suuus l’ha presa 8 giorni fa. ApertaAI-evals documentation feature
Azure/git-ape#400 · 1 assegnatario ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 2 giorni
-
agentic-workflows
Difficoltà 4/5 3-5 giorni Idoneità per principianti 25/100
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 2 giorni
-
agentic-workflows
Difficoltà 4/5 3-5 giorni Idoneità per principianti 35/100
Azure/git-ape#370 · 1 commento ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 2 giorni
Tutte le issue di Azure/git-ape
Issue simili
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 68/100
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 2 giorni
-
good first issue
Difficoltà 1/5 Meno di un'ora Idoneità per principianti 88/100
saayam-for-all/webapp#1919 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 70/100
Uuriko/project-room#3728 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
factory-active task-identify-harness-labels-done task-identify-issue-type-done
Difficoltà 1/5 Meno di un'ora Idoneità per principianti 70/100
vercel/ai#23435 · 1 commento ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
docs(site): Mermaid edge-label contrast on Architecture and a table header on How it comparesApertadocumentation
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 62/100
devops-thiago/ThrillhouseBot#1132 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno