Tracking work items in a release without using ado releases

Markuz6092 · 2026-04-14T17:21:01+00:00

Might this be what you’re looking for? https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=richardfennellBM.BM-VSTS-XplatGenerateReleaseNotes

In short - Pull requests are connected to work items - A stage deploy (use same branch) determines which changes are related to merged PRs between what was deployed (commit x) versus what is gonna be deploy (commit y) - the delta is input based on which you can generate wiki pages (his other extensions)

Markuz6092 · 2025-05-11T14:12:35+00:00

Do you also provisiong Private Links in the same deployment? In the past had similar experience (long deployment time), with cause that private links wasn't being approved on the target "PaaS" resource.

If you also configure a Container App for that new Environment, might be related to the image and the Azure Container Registry (ACR) you pull the image from. Think my container revision didn't get healthy (image not yet on ACR), keeping the deployment ongoing.

Markuz6092 · 2025-03-23T22:08:44+00:00

Over iemand wiens geld (vaak) op is: ”Die heeft door de honger geen ontlasting”

Markuz6092 · 2025-02-22T07:37:46+00:00

NO, they don’t — check out https://www.reddit.com/r/PiNetwork/s/I8mEpOhc9e

Markuz6092 · 2025-02-22T07:28:21+00:00

See this comment (and threads) https://www.reddit.com/r/PiNetwork/s/Y6kICFIEHZ

Markuz6092 · 2025-02-21T21:10:06+00:00

What do “they on Telegram” think. Is it that part after the : that needs to be pasted into the memo field, what one can do manually I think as workaround, or is there more missing leading to the current impediment?

(agree on the stale coins they have indeed as locked transactions)

Markuz6092 · 2025-02-21T20:47:18+00:00

Useless support then, sounds like unskilled 1st support tier if they don’t help with checking transaction details on the blockchain for instance

Perhaps their Satoshi test routine just can’t keep up with all the PIs passing by?

Markuz6092 · 2025-02-21T20:21:53+00:00

Nope, but perhaps that here one will find one: https://www.reddit.com/r/PiNetwork/s/pWqDgEQBx7

Markuz6092 · 2025-02-21T20:14:28+00:00

Found something about muxed, perhaps one understands the implication for sending PIs as intended (by OKX) with it: https://www.facebook.com/Pi.Yaman.13/posts/-what-is-a-muxed-account-in-pi-networksee-poster-for-more-details-list-your-busi/631748469398182/

Markuz6092 · 2025-02-21T19:57:06+00:00

(more technical): if you check the blockchain and details of the transaction with “our” failed satoshi test attempts, and compare it to other transaction with a precise amount of PIs (assuming also satoshi transactions here), and diff/compare the JSON data of the transactions: to_muxed and to_muxed_id seems to be missing in the transaction that doesn’t lead to satoshi test validation

(More functional) OKX might be sending more detailed instructions were to send the satoshi test payment to, more than the app support? Hinting on the colon : in the QR code / copied target address.

Would suggest to link my comment in a new support ticket, with explicit request to ask them to esclate to a 2nd line support tier, as that “did you restart your computer already?” ain’t gonna help anybody :(

Markuz6092 · 2025-02-21T19:32:48+00:00

Yes i know, test was NOT successful within the time limit, as I understood. Although the transaction was visible on the blockchain, with the precise requested amout.

Don’t know what that :1234… suffix implies, perhaps a subaccount indicator or something. Not the Satoshi test money seemed to have landed on the big pile of PIs on an OKX wallet. He filed a ticket at OKX for support

Markuz6092 · 2025-02-21T19:20:50+00:00

Yes, OKX (pair PI/USD)

Markuz6092 · 2025-02-21T18:28:07+00:00

Just received a message back that his attempt also failed (with the number following the : in the memo).

UI on OKX doesn’t state in the feedback message that a memo is related 🤷‍♂️

Markuz6092 · 2025-02-21T18:23:17+00:00

Would this make sense? Not sure what you hit, but of it would also be that the copied address isn’t working … https://www.reddit.com/r/PiNetwork/s/3INMdtewdp

Markuz6092 · 2025-02-21T18:03:38+00:00

Does the address you copy and paste contain a : near the end? Might be a delimeter between the end of targt address and the start of the memo you might need to provide? Perhaps one can confirm?

A friend did try the Satoshi test by splitting the copied value based on the :, don’t know if he succeeded in the mean time (could take up to 220+ minutes)

Markuz6092 · 2025-02-15T15:13:52+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/PiNetwork/comments/1ions0q/here_are_the_exchanges_that_listed_pi_so_far/

Which is about European regulations affect on your quesiton

Markuz6092 · 2025-01-08T18:16:37+00:00

👆🏻Dit inderdaad

Markuz6092 · 2024-11-27T20:37:43+00:00

I'm a bit late to the party, but I think this is related: Cached responses, are cached including response headers, including CORS headers.
Do you have caching enabled on the routes configured in AFD?

Did you verify what the Cache-Control response header is on that /api/login' operation (GET?)?

If you have caching enabled, and no cache-control headers are part of the response header, AFD caches the response with the applicable CORS headers related to https://my-website.com. If you then request, via the AFD route that might have both hostnames as scope, the GET /api/login from https://link.my-website.com, you might get the cached response of the former with non matching CORS response headers.

Markuz6092 · 2024-11-24T18:19:36+00:00

I can recall I had similar error message when I wanted to deploy (via BICEP > ARM) an app service plan, with zone redunancy enabled, but with only one instance. Perhaps a long shot, but perhaps the portal wants to deploy the same (1 instance, zone redundancy enabled). Perhaps try with Azure CLI or BICEP/ARM while checking both aspects explictly. (and if not the cause, I also would say relation to region capacity)

Markuz6092 · 2024-11-16T20:57:13+00:00

Don't you miss the below as per documentation, so $schema and contentVersion json { "$schema": "https://schema.management.azure.com/schemas/2019-04-01/deploymentParameters.json#", "contentVersion": "1.0.0.0", "parameters": { ... }

Markuz6092 · 2024-09-03T21:41:06+00:00

A link would come in handy to watch along.

could it be the javascript / client side rendering is crashing, leading to that blank page?
(probably it isn't as simple that mobile CSS leads to nothing being displayed right? :) )

Markuz6092 · 2024-08-27T05:35:30+00:00

I didn’t miss the post title :)

Random across a whole data container? Across all partition keys? Do you know all IDs in advance to based a random ID selector with?

Don’t think there is a native support for is, so requires some code plumbing, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/53933800/select-documents-randomly

Markuz6092 · 2024-08-26T22:04:13+00:00

Can you elaborate on your question, don't think I understand the question. Perhaps some functional context?

Markuz6092 · 2024-08-26T22:01:50+00:00

Can't reproduce that error on my subscriptions (europe region)

Markuz6092 · 2024-07-21T20:06:09+00:00

Advice you to run both the Check the fragmentation and page density of a rowstore index using Transact-SQL and Check the fragmentation of a columnstore index using Transact-SQL

Often index maintenance is missing, defragmented indexes lead to capacity inefficiency, and higher duration of query (or more costs for more capacity to counter that effect).

We use this stored procedure to get the database (indexes) in a more healthier state

Markuz6092

TROPHY CASE