Add a WFP provider object.

[shankarseal]

Description

Windows HLK tests for WFP requires drivers to add a provider object to identify the vendor. The changes were to add the provider to pass the HLK tests.

Testing

CI.

Documentation

Not required.

[dthaler]

Testing

No.

Documentation

No.

https://github.com/microsoft/ebpf-for-windows/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#contributing-code says:

For all new Pull Requests the following rules apply:

• Existing tests should continue to pass.
• Tests need to be provided for every bug/feature that is completed.
• Documentation needs to be provided for every feature that is end-user visible.

so saying "Testing: No" is not allowed. You need to at minimum say it's covered by existing tests (this isn't), or by manual testing or whatever. The description mentions HLK tests so I would expect the Testing section to talk about that. But we really want tests to be part of CI/CD, so either you should argue that HLK tests can be added to the github workflow, or else you should add a unit test that covers this functionality.

[dthaler]

See comment above.

[shankarseal]

Testing

No.

Documentation

No.

https://github.com/microsoft/ebpf-for-windows/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#contributing-code says:

For all new Pull Requests the following rules apply:

• Existing tests should continue to pass.
• Tests need to be provided for every bug/feature that is completed.
• Documentation needs to be provided for every feature that is end-user visible.

so saying "Testing: No" is not allowed. You need to at minimum say it's covered by existing tests (this isn't), or by manual testing or whatever. The description mentions HLK tests so I would expect the Testing section to talk about that. But we really want tests to be part of CI/CD, so either you should argue that HLK tests can be added to the github workflow, or else you should add a unit test that covers this functionality.

I wanted to write "N/A" - not sure why I wrote the rule "No". Sorry about that.

[dthaler]

I wanted to write "N/A" - not sure why I wrote the rule "No". Sorry about that.

Testing should never say "N/A". It's always applicable. For things like doc-only changes "No impact." would be the answer, but this is not a doc-only change.

[shankarseal]

I wanted to write "N/A" - not sure why I wrote the rule "No". Sorry about that.

Testing should never say "N/A". It's always applicable. For things like doc-only changes "No impact." would be the answer, but this is not a doc-only change.

Done. please approve.