Update: Microsoft will be moving away from UserVoice sites on a product-by-product basis throughout the 2021 calendar year. We will leverage 1st party solutions for customer feedback. Learn more here.

Tristan Griffith

My feedback

  1. 13 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Data Factory  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Tristan Griffith shared this idea  · 
  2. 542 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  13 comments  ·  Data Factory  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Tristan Griffith commented  · 

    Please add this. There are cases where we have a cleanup activity that needs to run when any part of our pipeline fails. Today, we have to have multiple instances of this activity for each failure point. It would be great if we could have a single instance of the cleanup activity that is connected to all the necessary failure triggers from other activities.

    Tristan Griffith supported this idea  · 
  3. 901 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  27 comments  ·  Data Factory  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Tristan Griffith commented  · 

    It's over 2 years since this was originally posted. We really need this feature as there are scenarios where an unconditional clean-up activity is needed but we also need to be alerted to failures.

    If you have a clean-up activity triggered by the completion of some other activity, any failures in the activity triggering the clean-up activity get masked and the overall pipeline will say that it "Succeeded".

    The current workaround is to connect a "Web" activity that queries a known unreachable endpoint to force the overall pipeline to fail. It would be great if instead we had proper support to explicitly throw an error (or an option on an activity to fail the overall pipeline on failure).

    Tristan Griffith supported this idea  · 
  4. 304 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    9 comments  ·  Data Factory  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Tristan Griffith supported this idea  · 
  5. 740 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    8 comments  ·  Data Factory  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Tristan Griffith supported this idea  · 
  6. 1,624 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  62 comments  ·  Data Factory  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Tristan Griffith supported this idea  · 
  7. 4 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Tristan Griffith shared this idea  · 
  8. 1,872 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    203 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Unfortunately the complexity to implement dark mode into SSMS v18 is prohibitive and this item remains unplanned. Regular updates and improvements to SQL Server Management Studio are continuing, but most of the net new innovations in the graphical tooling space can be expected to be seen in Azure Data Studio.

    -Drew

    Tristan Griffith supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base