Updated wording when EP is not configured#1967
Merged
Merged
Conversation
lusassl-msft
approved these changes
Jan 30, 2024
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue:
People can't determine from the current wording + the chart to understand if Extended Protection was even attempted to be configured. Because of this, we just want to provide slightly different wording when Extended Protection is not set at any location.
Fix:
If EP is configured at any location, provide the same wording of not configured correctly. Otherwise, if not configured, provide that it is not configured.
Resolved #1685
Validation:
Lab tested