[workshop-coverage] Workshop Coverage Status — 2026-10-05

已关闭
  • 哪里不对？
#391 0 条评论 0 个 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 查看

维护者通常 1 天内回复

还没有人认领这个 Issue。

评估

难度
5/5
预计耗时
一周以上
新手友好度
1/100
Issue 类型
文档
描述清晰度
需要澄清
活跃度
活跃
技术栈
azure, javascript
领域
documentation

调研方向

The issue reports workshop content changes and says a draft PR already exists on branch workshop-coverage-update-20261005; the PR is not linked in the payload. Start by reviewing the workshop files changed on that branch and the referenced destroy skill/workflow guidance. The issue recommends merging the draft PR and optionally deciding whether to add a lab callout for azure-rest-api-reference.

由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。

描述

report workshop-coverage

Run: https://github.com/Azure/git-ape/actions/runs/37372674211
Features assessed: 8 agents, 16 skills, 0 core workflows (no direct refs tracked this run)
Coverage: 20 / 24 fully covered · Gaps found: 4
Proposed this run: draft PR (branch workshop-coverage-update-20261005)

Gaps & proposed work
Feature Type Persona / Track Action Status
Track 3 Lab 6 destroy flow (content drift) lab content DevOps/SRE / T3 Rewrote Steps 1–8 to consistently describe the Deployment Stack destroy flow (previously contradicted itself: old RG-delete narrative vs. appended stack-based steps) In PR
az group delete teardown guidance (T2 Lab 5, T3 Lab 6) lab content Engineer / T2, DevOps / T3 Replaced raw az group delete advice for Git-Ape deployments with /azure-stack-destroy (the raw command skips soft-delete purge + subscription-scope cleanup, which the skill itself warns against) In PR
azure-stack-deploy / azure-stack-destroy skills skill Engineer / T2, DevOps / T3 Added glossary entries (0 refs previously) In PR
azure-requirements-gatherer agent agent Beginner / T1, Engineer / T2 Added glossary entry under its display name "Requirements Gatherer" (already covered narratively in labs, just missing from the glossary table) In PR
azure-resource-availability skill skill Beginner / T1 Named explicitly in Track 1 Lab 2 Step 3 (behaviour was already described, just unnamed) In PR
azure-rest-api-reference skill skill Engineer / T2 Added a "Going further" citation in Track 2 Lab 2 In PR
Coverage detail
  • Biggest finding: Track 3 Lab 6 ("Destroy Lifecycle") had drifted out of sync with the product. Its Steps 1–5 described the old per-resource-group destroy flow (read RG name from state.json → inventory resources → 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). The lab contradicted itself. Fixed Steps 1–5 to match the stack-based flow the actual git-ape-destroy.yml workflow and azure-stack-destroy skill implement today.
  • Both Track 2 Lab 5 and Track 3 Lab 6 told attendees to clean up with a raw az group delete. The azure-stack-destroy SKILL.md explicitly calls this an anti-pattern for Git-Ape-managed deployments (misses soft-delete purge for Key Vault/Cognitive Services, and misses subscription-scope resources like role/policy assignments that a stack can own). Replaced both with the /azure-stack-destroy skill invocation, which is the same primitive the CI destroy workflow uses — keeping local and CI teardown consistent, per the custom instructions' emphasis on using the stack-based destroy skill everywhere.
  • azure-stack-deploy and azure-stack-destroy skills had 0 inventory refs in workshops/. Rather than a new lab (Track 2/3 already teach deploy/destroy end-to-end through @git-ape and the PR-driven CI flow), I added glossary entries so attendees can map the CLI primitive to the skill name, and cited /azure-stack-destroy directly at the two cleanup sites above — judged sufficient since the behaviour was already lab-covered, only the skill name was missing.
  • azure-requirements-gatherer showed 0 refs by exact agent-slug grep, but is extensively covered under its display name "Requirements Gatherer" across Track 1/2 labs, demo scripts, and the Track 2 deck. This was a false-positive gap from the grep proxy — confirmed by reading the actual lab content. Added it to the glossary's agent table only, since it was the lone agent missing there.
  • azure-resource-availability is described behaviourally in Track 1 Lab 2 Step 3 (region/runtime/provider/CAF-name checks) but the skill was never named. Low-risk naming fix, not a new gap.
  • azure-rest-api-reference (0 refs) is an internal correctness tool the Template Generator agent uses before writing ARM resources — not something attendees invoke directly in any lab today. Persona/track ambiguity: it could justify a short Track 2 "debugging a deployment error" callout, but I judged a "Going further" citation sufficient for this run rather than inventing a new lab section not grounded in attendee-facing behaviour. Recommendation if a human wants to go further: a short addition to Track 2 Lab 3 (Security Deep Dive) or Lab 2 showing the agent citing /azure-rest-api-reference output when fixing a property-related deployment error — flagging this as optional future work rather than doing it unprompted.
  • azure-policy-advisor skill vs agent are both already covered (distinct from each other, both referenced).
  • No AWS or non-Azure skills exist in this repository — no scope-filter exclusions were needed this run.
  • No core-workflow-level gaps found; git-ape-plan.yml/deploy.yml/destroy.yml are all covered across Track 2 and Track 3 content (including the lab fixes above).
  • Open workshop-sync-labeled issues (#378, #379, #365, #351) were present but their bodies were redacted by an integrity policy in this run ("lower integrity than agent requires"). I proceeded using .workshop-snapshots/WORKSHOP-INVENTORY.md's "recently changed feature files" signal as the authoritative substitute, per the task's designed fallback. If any of those issues reference gaps beyond what the inventory captured, a follow-up run with issue access should re-assess.
Recommended next steps
  • Merge the linked draft PR to fix the destroy-lifecycle content drift and the az group delete anti-pattern — this is the highest-value fix since it was actively teaching attendees to contradict the product's own guardrails.
  • Decide whether azure-rest-api-reference deserves a dedicated lab callout (optional, not actioned this run — see detail above).
  • No new track is warranted; all current gaps fit within Tracks 1–3's existing personas.

Generated by Workshop Content Auto-Updater · copilot · auto · 118.5 AIC · ⌖ 9.05 AIC · ⊞ 12K · ◷

主要语言
JavaScript
星标
279
派生
49
平均合并
1 天 15 小时
30 天内合并 PR
24

环境准备

在 Codespaces 中打开

在浏览器里用你自己的 GitHub 账号启动这个项目的开发容器。

  • 没有 Dockerfile 或 Docker Compose 文件
  • 没有 Pull Request 模板
  • 阅读贡献指南

从这里开始

  1. 先读完整个 Issue，再读项目的贡献指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
  3. Fork 仓库，在一个分支上完成修改。
  4. 提交 Pull Request，并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。

Azure/git-ape 的其他 Issue

查看 Azure/git-ape 的全部 Issue

相似的 Issue

更多 JavaScript Issue

把新 issue 发到你的邮箱

精选适合新手参与的 GitHub issue 摘要。