We were using Confluence in our company, but now the management has decided to move to SP Online and Azure DevOps. I am looking to write a custom tool, using Powershell and RestAPI to do this job. I understand there are many feature gaps including modern page UI in SP, text formatting etc.
Has anyone worked on something similar like this? If yes, then what was your approach? What are the possible issues I should be prepared for? Me being a non coder would highly appreciate if someone can share a code snippet too.
Related
I was thinking it could be ADO, but that would get it confused with a legacy Microsoft data access layer "ActiveX Data Objects" or whatever it stood for... Or DevOps, but that would get it confused with devops in general, and it's not all that much shorter anyway... Is there an official abbreviation or one that has been settled on by the community?
I've seen 'AzDO' used with success and am not aware of any existing conflicts, like with the misused 'ADO' acronym.
From MVP Juan Rafael, as per this slide presentation which seems fairly definitive, slide 43 states:
No abbreviations should be used (especially not ADS). Azure DevOps or #AzureDevOps are the only permitted forms.
As far as i know there is no official abbreviation for Azure DevOps, these are the ones i tend to hear: ADO, ADOPS, VSTS (yep still going strong). but the majority of times i see people just spelling it out fully.
But i'll keep an eye on this thread to see if there will be some consensus reached :P
I prefer ADO over AZDO/AzDO. It should be clear enough of what you're talking based on the general context of your conversations (Cloud vs. . Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActiveX_Data_Objects, ADO.NET is the current technology, so ADO is available again ;-)
So I´m looking at the Agile Workflow in Azure DevOps and I´m wondering, what´s the purpose of the Feature work item?
I´ve used Jira a lot and we only used Epics->User Stories->Tasks.
I can´t fine any good explanation to why Microsoft has added this WIT to their default workflow.
See here, Adding Features and Epics
I think of it this way, you would define a feature flag around code for a feature because it's a single shippable unit of testable code, but you wouldn't do the same for an epic because it's a hodgepodge of stories related to a business initiative. Having the two WITs allows you to clearly delineate those two needs and to map the user stories accordingly.
I am working on a Visual Studio Code extension, and I would like to use Telemetry to have some insights about the use of the extension.
The Telemetry repository explains how to create a Reporter. I believe how the Python extensions use it is much better though. The problem is that documentation is quite bad at how to get the key or where is the dashboard to see the data.
Do you know if the Telemetry of a VS Code extension works with Azure Application Insights? It could make sense, but I'm new to Microsoft world and I wouldn't like start creating a lot of accounts or expend too much time working on that and being wrong :-)
Thank you for your answers.
After some research and more new accounts at Azure. The answer to this question is yes, at least partially. I don't know if there are other ways, but Telemetry with Application Insights (at Azure) works quite well.
Telemetry configuration is something the Microsoft documentation doesn't explain, actually there is not too much información about all the Telemetry usage.
I am looking to create a way to build my Legacy Delphi 5 and 6 apps via TFS Build (using TFS 2010).
I was fairly dangerous with the MSBuild way of doing things and I think I can still do that, but I would like to get into the Work Flow way of doing it.
Are there any resources out there that discuss customizing a TFS Build via Windows Work Flow? Especially how to override the solution concept and how to compile and report errors.
Thanks for any info.
You may need to look into creating a custom workflow activity. There's a pretty good article on how to do that here. That said, I'm creating one now and finding it to be a pretty fiddly a annoying process.
There is a pretty strong need for us to design some workflows around various processes. The problem is none of us actually know any workflow technology yet, and finding good data to compare the available options has been tedious and not entirely fruitful.
So I figured I'd ask you guys.
The main technologies we are looking at are Windows Workflow Foundation and eDocs Workflow. What other options are there? Sharepoint 2007 has workflow functionality too, right? Is that just based on WF?
What are the pros and cons of the various technologies? How do they compare?
EDIT: Also, one feature the administrative types like with eDocs Workflow is that it provides a method for them to edit it themselves. I believe Sharepoint '07 does as well. Is there some other way to allow that with a straight WWF implementation?
Sharepoint and WF more like complementary technologies, designed as two different workflow authoring tools in the same ecosystem. There's a Sharepoint workflow designer, and a WF (Windows Workflow Foundation) workflow designer.
The Sharepoint designer is meant to be an Office-like workflow editing experience, easier to get started with, geared for non-technical types, and generates all the web forms automatically.
The 'WF' workflow designer on the other hand is actually a component of Visual Studio (by default - as Bernie says you can rehost it), and designed to allow programmers to be able to fully customize workflow, and integrate it with any other code/systems desired. Building and deploying sharepoint sites this way is still possible, through the use of 'Sharepoint Activities', but more complex.
If you take the former route, you can hopefully let the administrative types do their own basic customizations (up to the limits of that environment) without causing total chaos.
It is possible to 'rehost' the WF designer (the one from Visual Studio) in your own application, so that users can author workflows. There are a number of code examples on the web, the most important one from MS itself: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480213.aspx).
At some point, when evaluating WF, I implemented a demo application that did this and added some features and found that although it works, not everybody can understand and use the more difficult activities (like the policy activity) that require understanding of how the rules engine works.