Integration Test - Release - 2025/12/17 19:59:14

[prmerger-test]

Auto create for integration test. IssueCommandFlow

[prmerger-test]

@prmerger-test[bot] : Thanks for your contribution! The author(s) and reviewer(s) have been notified to review your proposed change. @martinoflaherty

[learn-build-service-prod]

Learn Build status updates of commit 287bc90:

💡 Validation status: suggestions

File	Status	Preview URL	Details
IntegrationTest/BuildIntegrationTestFiles/ChangeSentToAuthor.md	💡Suggestion	View	Details

IntegrationTest/BuildIntegrationTestFiles/ChangeSentToAuthor.md

• Line 4, Column 1: [Suggestion: ms-service-suggested] Missing required attribute: 'ms.service'. ms.service is suggested for each article that is published on Learn.
• Line 8, Column 12: [Suggestion: ms-author-invalid - See documentation] Invalid value for 'ms.author', 'PRMergerTest2' is not a valid Microsoft alias.
• Line 12, Column 1: [Suggestion: ms-prod-disallowed - See documentation] ms.prod is deprecated and can't be used for all content.

For more details, please refer to the build report.

Note: Your PR may contain errors or warnings or suggestions unrelated to the files you changed. This happens when external dependencies like GitHub alias, Microsoft alias, cross repo links are updated. Please use these instructions to resolve them.

[shujingMS]

PRMerger Validation Results (Corrected)  _{of commit: 1dca6ca Original PR: MicrosoftDocs/entra-docs-pr#10177}

Needs human review:

Rule	Location	Description	AI Review
large-pull-request	concept-authentication-methods.md	This pull request contains file(s) with more than 30% change.	Result: ✅Passed
large-pull-request	how-to-deploy-phishing-resistant-passwordless-authentication.md	This pull request contains file(s) with more than 30% change.	Result: Passed
large-pull-request	how-to-plan-persona-phishing-resistant-passwordless-authentication.md	This pull request contains file(s) with more than 30% change.	Result: Passed
large-pull-request	how-to-register-passkey.md	This pull request contains file(s) with more than 30% change.	Result: Passed
large-pull-request	how-to-sign-in-passkey.md	This pull request contains file(s) with more than 30% change.	Result: Passed
large-pull-request	index.yml	This pull request contains file(s) with more than 30% change.	Result: Passed
large-pull-request	overview-authentication.md	This pull request contains file(s) with more than 30% change.	Result: Passed
json-toc-changes	TOC.yml	This PR contains TOC or configuration changes that need human review: It contains a JSON file., It contains a TOC file change.	Result: Rejected Reasoning: The 'Authentication methods' node in the updated TOC now contains 15 child items, which exceeds the recommended maximum of 12 items. This overpopulation can degrade navigational usability and make management of the TOC difficult.
new-files	concept-authentication-passkeys-fido2.md	This PR contains new (non-root) files that require human review.	Result: Partially Approved
new-files	concept-authentication-platform-credential-for-macos.md	This PR contains new (non-root) files that require human review.	Result: Partially Approved
new-files	concept-authentication-windows-hello.md	This PR contains new (non-root) files that require human review.	Result: Partially Approved
json-toc-changes	.openpublishing.redirection.json	This PR contains TOC or configuration changes that need human review: It contains a JSON file., It contains a TOC file change.	Result: Partially Approved

Correction Summary

All 7 large-pull-request entries changed from Rejected Passed. Reasoning:

• PR Type: Large move/refactor PR (file additions, deletions, renames, TOC & metadata changes across the authentication section).
• Target Branch: release-ignite-entra-docs-pr this is a release branch, not the default branch (main).
• Applicable Review Point (large-move-refactor-pr): "If the large move or refactor PR targets the default branch, block it." The PR correctly targets a release branch, so this check passes.
• Fallback Review Point (large-pr-governance): "For any PR scenario not matching known patterns, block." Not applicable because this PR matches the large-move-refactor-pr pattern.

The json-toc-changes and new-files results are unchanged as they belong to separate rules unaffected by this correction.

Note:

• This comment contains AI-generated content which may be incorrect.
• For any questions: Try searching the https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/help/platform/?branch=main contributor guides or post your question in the Learn support channel.

[shujingMS]

PRMerger Validation Results (Corrected)  _{of commit: 1dca6ca Original PR: MicrosoftDocs/entra-docs-pr#10177}

Action Required (1)

Rule	Location	Reasoning
json-toc-changes	TOC.yml	The 'Authentication methods' node now contains 15 child items, exceeding the recommended maximum of 12. This can degrade navigational usability.

Passed large-pull-request (7 files)

All 7 large-pull-request checks passed. The original bot incorrectly rejected these by misidentifying release-ignite-entra-docs-pr as the default branch.

Location	Description
concept-authentication-methods.md	File with >30% change
how-to-deploy-phishing-resistant-passwordless-authentication.md	File with >30% change
how-to-plan-persona-phishing-resistant-passwordless-authentication.md	File with >30% change
how-to-register-passkey.md	File with >30% change
how-to-sign-in-passkey.md	File with >30% change
index.yml	File with >30% change
overview-authentication.md	File with >30% change

Partially Approved (4 files)

Rule	Location
new-files	concept-authentication-passkeys-fido2.md
new-files	concept-authentication-platform-credential-for-macos.md
new-files	concept-authentication-windows-hello.md
json-toc-changes	.openpublishing.redirection.json

Correction Summary Why 7 results changed

The original bot rejected all 7 large-pull-request files claiming the PR targets the default branch. This is incorrect:

• PR Type: Large move/refactor PR (file additions, deletions, renames, TOC & metadata changes across the authentication section).
• Target Branch: release-ignite-entra-docs-pr a release branch, not main.
• Review Point (large-move-refactor-pr): "If the large move or refactor PR targets the default branch, block it." PR targets a release branch, so this check passes.
• Fallback (large-pr-governance): Not applicable PR matches the large-move-refactor-pr pattern.

---

_{This comment contains AI-generated content which may be incorrect. | Contributor guides}

[shujingMS]

PRMerger Validation Results (Manual Review)  _{PR: MicrosoftDocs/azure-databases-docs-pr#4094 commit: 0aeeb35}

PR Summary: "Reorg mysql #2" by @techlake | 56 files changed (+3534 3182) | Target: release-mysql-security (release branch) | 10 commits

---

Action Required (2)

Rule	Location	Reasoning
json-toc-changes / toc-node-structure	TOC.yml	The Release notes node contains 15 child items, exceeding the recommended maximum of 12. This overpopulation can degrade navigational usability. Consider grouping by year or trimming older entries.
json-toc-changes / toc-node-structure	TOC.yml	The Azure CLI samples node contains 12 child items at the upper boundary (max 12). Adding any more items would exceed the limit.

---

Passed

large-pull-request All checks passed (7 review points)

Review Point	Result	Reasoning
large-move-refactor-pr	Passed	PR is a large refactor/reorg but correctly targets the release branch release-mysql-security, not main.
scoped-pr	Passed	Title "Reorg mysql #2" indicates a scoped restructuring effort. Diff shows consistent section/TOC reorganization no copy-paste errors or anomalous typo corrections detected.
dirty-pr	Passed	PR is not a dirty PR — no merge conflict resolution signals in title or description.
large-pr-governance	Passed	PR matches the large-move-refactor-pr pattern; fallback governance rule does not apply.
File naming	Passed	All file names use lowercase, hyphens, and correct extensions.
Unintentional files	Passed	No binaries, .DS_Store, desktop.ini, or other suspicious files present.
GDPR / CodePen / zone-pivot	Passed	No GDPR terms, CodePen iframes, or zone-pivot-groups changes detected in the diff.

json-toc-changes Redirect file checked

Review Point	Result	Reasoning
Redirect for deleted file	Passed	The deleted file flexible-server/how-to-data-encryption-portal.md has a redirect entry pointing to /azure/mysql/flexible-server/security-how-to-data-encryption-portal with redirect_document_id: true.
toc-links (YouTube)	Passed	No YouTube links found in TOC.
toc-node-structure (typos)	Passed	No obvious typographical errors in TOC headings.
toc-node-structure (parent href)	Passed	Parent nodes with items arrays do not include href properties.
Redirection JSON formatting	Passed	Formatting changes are consistent indent normalization (42 spaces). No structural issues.

new-files / new-root-files / new-service-folders No new files

No new files were added. One file was deleted (how-to-data-encryption-portal.md) with a proper redirect. These rules are not triggered.

Other rules Not triggered

Rule	Status	Reason
acrolinx-score	Not triggered	No Acrolinx threshold violations reported.
hub-page-change	Not triggered	No hub/landing page (index.yml with hub layout) changes.
gdpr-reference	Not triggered	No GDPR terms found in diff.
codepen-reference	Not triggered	No CodePen iframes found.
modified-docfx-config	Not triggered	No docfx.json changes.
image-change	Not triggered	No image files added or modified.

---

Advisory Notes (non-blocking)

Style observations in modified files (6 files)

These are pre-existing style issues in modified files not introduced by this PR, so not blocking, but worth noting:

File	Issue
connect-java.md	Uses "we" language: "we include two authentication methods", "we commented methods"
connect-workbench.md	Uses "we" language in table descriptions
how-to-troubleshoot-common-connection-issues.md	Uses "we": "we discuss how you can troubleshoot"
how-to-restore-cluster.md (documentdb)	Uses "may" instead of "might"
security-tls.md	Uses "we": "We strongly advise against..."
whats-new-archive.md / whats-new.md	Multiple "we're" usages in announcement-style entries

Per Microsoft Writing Style Guide: use "might" instead of "may" for possibility; avoid "we/our" referring to documentation authors.

---

_{This comment contains AI-generated content which may be incorrect. | Contributor guides}