Skip to content

Conversation

@krzysztofstaszalek
Copy link
Contributor

EPP: KB articles
"How to change epproot Password and Optimize Endpoint Protector On-Prem Appliance"
"How to expand Disk Space on Endpoint Protector On-Prem Appliance"

@krzysztofstaszalek krzysztofstaszalek requested review from a team as code owners January 14, 2026 14:52
bturlea
bturlea previously approved these changes Jan 14, 2026
tay-caliguiri
tay-caliguiri previously approved these changes Jan 14, 2026
…ide complianceUpdate epproot password and optimization KB for Markdown and Style Guide compliance

Reformatted the KB article for Markdown and Netwrix Style Guide compliance.
No technical content was added or modified.
Existing optimization steps for Nginx, MySQL, and PHP-FPM were preserved exactly as in the source.
@hilram7 hilram7 dismissed stale reviews from bturlea and tay-caliguiri via 624e529 January 22, 2026 14:58
… Guide compliance

Reformatted the KB article “How to Expand Disk Space on Endpoint Protector On-Prem Appliance” for Markdown and Netwrix Style Guide compliance.

Changes made:

- Normalized heading hierarchy and section structure (Overview, Instructions, Related Links).
- Converted inline code and commands to fenced code blocks with language hints.
- Replaced ad hoc “Note” blocks with standardized > **NOTE:** syntax.
- Reformatted tables, lists, and images for accessibility and readability.
- No technical content or procedural steps were modified.
@hilram7
Copy link
Collaborator

hilram7 commented Jan 22, 2026

@krzysztofstaszalek looks like your PR is actually fine as it is. I updated the KB files so that they are properly formatted according to our Style Guide. Below is a summary of my investigation of the failed workflow behavior we discussed today.

Why the checks failed initially but passed after approval:

This PR is coming from a fork, and this repository is configured to require approval for workflows from all external contributors. Because of that:

  • The GitHub Actions workflows did not run automatically at first.
  • After I approved the workflow run (as a repo member/code owner), the workflows were allowed to start.
  • The build steps succeeded because they do not require secrets.
  • The deploy step initially failed because fork-based PR workflows do not have access to repository secrets (e.g., Azure storage account settings), which caused the Azure CLI command to receive an empty argument.
  • Once the workflow was manually approved/re-run in a trusted context, the required permissions/secrets were available and the deploy step completed successfully.

This behavior is expected and consistent with our GitHub Actions security settings for forked pull requests.

@hilram7 hilram7 merged commit b371452 into netwrix:dev Jan 22, 2026
3 of 5 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants