OS Core Lib Azure merge requestshttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests2023-08-18T12:42:58Zhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/220fix issue of the sp multiple calls for each partitions2023-08-18T12:42:58ZYauheni Lesnikaufix issue of the sp multiple calls for each partitionsWe noticed that the services try to fetch `app-dev-sp-username` from keyvault for the first call for each partition. Especially it has an effect when there are a lot of partitions on the environment.
Because of this we updated the `Tena...We noticed that the services try to fetch `app-dev-sp-username` from keyvault for the first call for each partition. Especially it has an effect when there are a lot of partitions on the environment.
Because of this we updated the `TenantFactoryImpl` not to retrieve the `app-dev-sp-username` on `initPartition()` call but use the initially fetched value from `AzureOSDUConfig`
Similar issue was found for the `redis-hostname` and `redis-password`. We used to do unnecessary KeyVault requests during checking whether the values presented into the KeyVault. Now it fixed as well.M14 - Release 0.17Yauheni LesnikauYauheni Lesnikauhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/219Implement refreshing of field "clientSecret"2022-09-30T20:59:55ZArsen GrigoryanImplement refreshing of field "clientSecret"1. I separated the "clientSecret" getting functionality in another method.
2. Add the checking functionality for recreating "clientSecret".
Issue: https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-...1. I separated the "clientSecret" getting functionality in another method.
2. Add the checking functionality for recreating "clientSecret".
Issue: https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/issues/24M14 - Release 0.17Yauheni LesnikauYauheni Lesnikauhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/218Harsheet pvt link validation2023-08-18T12:42:59ZHarsheet ShahHarsheet pvt link validation## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [YES/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [YES/NO/NA] I have...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [YES/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [YES/NO/NA] I have added tests to cover my changes.
* [YES/NO/NA] All new and existing tests passed.
* [YES/NO/NA] My code follows the code style of this project.
* [YES/NO/NA] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission.
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
<!-- Please describe the current behavior that you are modifying, 'or' link to a relevant issue.
Feel free to add references to any design documents you might have shared with the team or any
related MR that you are building on top of. -->
High level design:
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
<!-- Please add implementation details of current set of changes and how the code changes are
doing what they are expected to do. Are there any complex loops or designated code blocks that
should be elaborated? Is there some contextual knowledge that the reviewer should be aware of? -->
Change details:
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [YES/NO]
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Pending items
----------------
<!-- Are there changes that you'll introduce in upcoming MRs and hence did not add in this one? Next steps of your
feature can also be mentioned here. -->
## Reviewer request
-------------------
- Please provide an ETA when you plan to review this MR. Write a comment to decline or provide an ETA.
- Block the MR if you feel there is less testing or no details in the MR
- Please cover the following aspects in the MR
-- Coding design: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Logic design\>_
-- _\<Any other context mention here>_
OR
-- _\<Component 1>_: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- _\<CosmosDB>_: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- _\<ServiceBus>_ _\<Reviewer3>_
-- _\<Mention any other component and owner>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->M13 - Release 0.16Harsheet ShahHarsheet Shahhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/217Exception handling2023-08-18T12:43:01ZArsen GrigoryanException handlingException handling in method getIdToken on class AzureServicePrinciple (os-core-lib-azure)
Issue: https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/issues/24Exception handling in method getIdToken on class AzureServicePrinciple (os-core-lib-azure)
Issue: https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/issues/24M14 - Release 0.17Arsen GrigoryanArsen Grigoryanhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/216Undelete blob2023-07-13T03:28:14ZAlok JoshiUndelete blobAdding `undelete` operation support in the library to enable restoring soft-deleted blobs
We have seen a few records that end up in an inconsistent state where the latest version from CosmosDb for a record is soft-deleted from Blob stor...Adding `undelete` operation support in the library to enable restoring soft-deleted blobs
We have seen a few records that end up in an inconsistent state where the latest version from CosmosDb for a record is soft-deleted from Blob storage. This will fail apis like GET `/api/storage/v2/records/<id>` and POST `/api/storage/v2/query/records:batch`. Restoring the soft delete version from Blob Storage (which is available in CosmosDb metadata for the record) will fix the inconsistency.
Reference docs:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/blobs/soft-delete-blob-manage?tabs=dotnet#restore-soft-deleted-blobs-when-versioning-is-enabled
https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-java/issues/25943
There will be a follow up change in Storage serviceM13 - Release 0.16Alok JoshiAlok Joshihttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/215Cherry-pick 'Upgrade Jackson Databind Version ' into 'release/0.15'2022-12-22T18:58:02ZDavid Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orgCherry-pick 'Upgrade Jackson Databind Version ' into 'release/0.15'Original MR !214Original MR !214M12 - Release 0.15David Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orgDavid Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orghttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/214Upgrade Jackson Databind Version2022-06-08T20:32:23ZDavid Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orgUpgrade Jackson Databind VersionThis MR upgrades the Jackson Databind version to address [CVE-2020-36518](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-36518).
In this case, version 2.13.2 was being selected automatically. That version was still vulnerable, though the Tag...This MR upgrades the Jackson Databind version to address [CVE-2020-36518](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-36518).
In this case, version 2.13.2 was being selected automatically. That version was still vulnerable, though the Tagging Notes didn't catch it (because it coerces versions into a triplet).
### Dependency Information After the Upgrade
```
Branch: upgrade-jackson-databind
SHA: 7cde780c48d07eec1131a99fa4859c4af3df6b58
Maven: 0.16.0-SNAPSHOT
```
| Maven Dependencies | _Root_ |
| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------- |
| os-core-common | 0.15.0 |
| (3rd Party) com.fasterxml.jackson.core.jackson-databind | 2.13.2.2 |M12 - Release 0.15David Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orgDavid Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orghttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/213Cherry-pick 'Upgrade First Party Library Dependencies for Release 0.15' into ...2022-12-22T18:58:03ZDavid Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orgCherry-pick 'Upgrade First Party Library Dependencies for Release 0.15' into 'release/0.15'Original MR: !209Original MR: !209M12 - Release 0.15David Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orgDavid Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orghttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/212Adding validation for private links2023-08-18T12:43:03ZHarsheet ShahAdding validation for private links## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it? Yes
* [YES/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly. Yes
* [YES/NO/NA...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it? Yes
* [YES/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly. Yes
* [YES/NO/NA] I have added tests to cover my changes. Yes
* [YES/NO/NA] All new and existing tests passed. Yes
* [YES/NO/NA] My code follows the code style of this project. Yes
* [YES/NO/NA] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission. Yes
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
<!-- Please describe the current behavior that you are modifying, 'or' link to a relevant issue.
Feel free to add references to any design documents you might have shared with the team or any
related MR that you are building on top of. -->
Validation for private links
High level design:
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
<!-- Please add implementation details of current set of changes and how the code changes are
doing what they are expected to do. Are there any complex loops or designated code blocks that
should be elaborated? Is there some contextual knowledge that the reviewer should be aware of? -->
Change details:
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [YES/NO] Yes
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Pending items
----------------
<!-- Are there changes that you'll introduce in upcoming MRs and hence did not add in this one? Next steps of your
feature can also be mentioned here. -->
## Reviewer request
-------------------
- Please provide an ETA when you plan to review this MR. Write a comment to decline or provide an ETA.
- Block the MR if you feel there is less testing or no details in the MR
- Please cover the following aspects in the MR
-- Coding design: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Logic design\>_
-- _\<Any other context mention here>_
OR
-- _\<Component 1>_: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- _\<CosmosDB>_: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- _\<ServiceBus>_ _\<Reviewer3>_
-- _\<Mention any other component and owner>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->M13 - Release 0.16Harsheet ShahHarsheet Shahhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/211Bulk create using Cosmos Client2023-08-18T12:43:05ZAnkur RawatBulk create using Cosmos ClientAdded a method to bulk create the records using CosmosClient. CosmosClient can be created either with MSI or Cosmos-primary Key.Added a method to bulk create the records using CosmosClient. CosmosClient can be created either with MSI or Cosmos-primary Key.M13 - Release 0.16Ankur RawatAnkur Rawathttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/210Draft: Upgrading Jackson Databind to match core-common (0.15.0)2022-06-08T17:31:34ZDavid Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orgDraft: Upgrading Jackson Databind to match core-common (0.15.0)This addresses CVE-2020-36518 without fully upgrading the core-common dependency.This addresses CVE-2020-36518 without fully upgrading the core-common dependency.M12 - Release 0.15David Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orgDavid Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orghttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/209Upgrade First Party Library Dependencies for Release 0.152022-06-08T17:35:20ZDavid Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orgUpgrade First Party Library Dependencies for Release 0.15This automated MR upgrades the first party libraries (other OSDU libraries) to utilize the latest release.
The intent is to keep the OSDU projects utilizing the latest available code to ensure widespread usage and stability.
However, any...This automated MR upgrades the first party libraries (other OSDU libraries) to utilize the latest release.
The intent is to keep the OSDU projects utilizing the latest available code to ensure widespread usage and stability.
However, any library that is older than the previous release will be left as-is, since the upgrade is likely to be more complicated.
Furthermore, the upgrade should only be merged in the CI pipeline reports success.
If this MR has failed, we can spend a little time investigating to see if a trivial upgrade could achieve compatiblity to the new library.
But significant upgrade efforts should not occur on this MR, as part of the release tagging process.
Instead, significant work should be scheduled for a subsequent milestone.
### Dependency Information Before the Upgrade
```
Branch: master
SHA: 5db23f6ae6331e1e7a1fdbd4701715f938372bdb
Maven: 0.15.0-SNAPSHOT
```
| Maven Dependencies | _Root_ |
| ------------------------------------------------------- | ---------- |
| os-core-common | 0.15.0-rc4 |
| (3rd Party) com.fasterxml.jackson.core.jackson-databind | 2.11.4 |
### Dependency Information After the Upgrade
```
Branch: dependency-upgrade
SHA: 692f530507e01f6f9be05d0fcc8d66c2b3dc1e9b
Maven: 0.15.0-SNAPSHOT
```
| Maven Dependencies | _Root_ |
| ------------------ | ------ |
| os-core-common | 0.15.0 |M12 - Release 0.15https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/208Add `keyVaultUrl` in PartitionInfo for Secret service2023-02-04T05:36:55ZDmitrii Novikov (EPAM)Add `keyVaultUrl` in PartitionInfo for Secret service## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [YES] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [YES/NO/NA] I have added...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [YES] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [YES/NO/NA] I have added tests to cover my changes. - TBD - Opened up for initial review
* [YES] All new and existing tests passed.
* [YES] My code follows the code style of this project.
* [YES] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission.
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
Secret service need new property `keyVaultUrl` in PartitionInfo
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [NO]Dmitrii Novikov (EPAM)Dmitrii Novikov (EPAM)https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/207add AbstractMessageHandlerWithActiveRetry implementation for service bus mess...2022-05-25T12:09:24ZYauheni Lesnikauadd AbstractMessageHandlerWithActiveRetry implementation for service bus message handler## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [YES] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [YES] I have added tests...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [YES] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [YES] I have added tests to cover my changes.
* [YES] All new and existing tests passed.
* [YES] My code follows the code style of this project.
* [YES] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission.
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
<!-- Please describe the current behavior that you are modifying, 'or' link to a relevant issue.
Feel free to add references to any design documents you might have shared with the team or any
related MR that you are building on top of. -->
High level design:
Issue: https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/issues/22
<!-- Please add implementation details of current set of changes and how the code changes are
doing what they are expected to do. Are there any complex loops or designated code blocks that
should be elaborated? Is there some contextual knowledge that the reviewer should be aware of? -->
Change details: I've added new class `AbstractMessageHandlerWithActiveRetry` which extends the `AbstractMessageHandler` which provides functionality for the retry management.Yauheni LesnikauYauheni Lesnikauhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/206Fixing CVE-2022-22965 by upgrading spring-beans2022-08-05T09:20:42ZKhilesh SahuFixing CVE-2022-22965 by upgrading spring-beansA Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux application running on JDK 9+ may be vulnerable to remote code execution (RCE) via data binding. The specific exploit requires the application to run on Tomcat as a WAR deployment. If the application is dep...A Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux application running on JDK 9+ may be vulnerable to remote code execution (RCE) via data binding. The specific exploit requires the application to run on Tomcat as a WAR deployment. If the application is deployed as a Spring Boot executable jar, i.e. the default, it is not vulnerable to the exploit. However, the nature of the vulnerability is more general, and there may be other ways to exploit it.
The vulnerability in Spring Beans allows attackers under certain circumstances to achieve remote code execution (RCE).
Fixing this issue : https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/issues/21
More details can be found here:
https://spring.io/blog/2022/03/31/spring-framework-rce-early-announcement
https://www.whitesourcesoftware.com/vulnerability-database/CVE-2022-22965https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/205ApplicationInsights flag integration2023-08-18T12:43:07ZAnubhav AronApplicationInsights flag integration**Functional Problem statement:**
In OAK, Application Insights is disabled and Logs that are emitted to Application Insights are getting dropped.
**Expected Behavior:**
Integrate feature flag to decide destination [Geneva or Applicat...**Functional Problem statement:**
In OAK, Application Insights is disabled and Logs that are emitted to Application Insights are getting dropped.
**Expected Behavior:**
Integrate feature flag to decide destination [Geneva or ApplicationInsights]. In OAK, logs will send to Geneva In OSDU, logs dependency to be send to ApplicationInsights.
**Technical Problem statement:**
In case of applicationInsights, for every logger call, a new applicationInsight client is getting created with same configuration.
**Expected Behavior:**
If application Insights is enabled, only one Application client will be created.M12 - Release 0.15Anubhav AronAnubhav Aronhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/204Feature a idisable flag integration2022-05-12T06:53:22ZAnubhav AronFeature a idisable flag integration## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [YES/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [YES/NO/NA] I have...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [YES/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [YES/NO/NA] I have added tests to cover my changes.
* [YES/NO/NA] All new and existing tests passed.
* [YES/NO/NA] My code follows the code style of this project.
* [YES/NO/NA] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission.
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
<!-- Please describe the current behavior that you are modifying, 'or' link to a relevant issue.
Feel free to add references to any design documents you might have shared with the team or any
related MR that you are building on top of. -->
High level design:
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
<!-- Please add implementation details of current set of changes and how the code changes are
doing what they are expected to do. Are there any complex loops or designated code blocks that
should be elaborated? Is there some contextual knowledge that the reviewer should be aware of? -->
Change details:
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [YES/NO]
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Pending items
----------------
<!-- Are there changes that you'll introduce in upcoming MRs and hence did not add in this one? Next steps of your
feature can also be mentioned here. -->
## Reviewer request
-------------------
- Please provide an ETA when you plan to review this MR. Write a comment to decline or provide an ETA.
- Block the MR if you feel there is less testing or no details in the MR
- Please cover the following aspects in the MR
-- Coding design: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Logic design\>_
-- _\<Any other context mention here>_
OR
-- _\<Component 1>_: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- _\<CosmosDB>_: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- _\<ServiceBus>_ _\<Reviewer3>_
-- _\<Mention any other component and owner>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/203Add option to read AAD variables from env2023-08-18T12:43:08Zharshit aggarwalAdd option to read AAD variables from env## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [YES/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [YES/NO/NA] I have...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [YES/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [YES/NO/NA] I have added tests to cover my changes.
* [YES/NO/NA] All new and existing tests passed.
* [YES/NO/NA] My code follows the code style of this project.
* [YES/NO/NA] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission.
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
<!-- Please describe the current behavior that you are modifying, 'or' link to a relevant issue.
Feel free to add references to any design documents you might have shared with the team or any
related MR that you are building on top of. -->
High level design:
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
<!-- Please add implementation details of current set of changes and how the code changes are
doing what they are expected to do. Are there any complex loops or designated code blocks that
should be elaborated? Is there some contextual knowledge that the reviewer should be aware of? -->
Change details:
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [YES/NO]
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Pending items
----------------
<!-- Are there changes that you'll introduce in upcoming MRs and hence did not add in this one? Next steps of your
feature can also be mentioned here. -->
## Reviewer request
-------------------
- Please provide an ETA when you plan to review this MR. Write a comment to decline or provide an ETA.
- Block the MR if you feel there is less testing or no details in the MR
- Please cover the following aspects in the MR
-- Coding design: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Logic design\>_
-- _\<Any other context mention here>_
OR
-- _\<Component 1>_: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- _\<CosmosDB>_: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- _\<ServiceBus>_ _\<Reviewer3>_
-- _\<Mention any other component and owner>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->
AddM12 - Release 0.15harshit aggarwalharshit aggarwalhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/202Use blob endpoint instead of storage account name2023-08-18T12:43:10ZKrishna Nikhil VedurumudiUse blob endpoint instead of storage account name## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [YES] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [TBD] I have added tests...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [YES] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [TBD] I have added tests to cover my changes.
* [YES] All new and existing tests passed.
* [YES] My code follows the code style of this project.
* [YES] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission.
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
<!-- Please describe the current behavior that you are modifying, 'or' link to a relevant issue.
Feel free to add references to any design documents you might have shared with the team or any
related MR that you are building on top of. -->
Added ability to Support Partition DNS Storage accounts for Blob Operations.
High level design:
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
<!-- Please add implementation details of current set of changes and how the code changes are
doing what they are expected to do. Are there any complex loops or designated code blocks that
should be elaborated? Is there some contextual knowledge that the reviewer should be aware of? -->
Change details:
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [YES/NO]
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Pending items
----------------
<!-- Are there changes that you'll introduce in upcoming MRs and hence did not add in this one? Next steps of your
feature can also be mentioned here. -->
Unit tests pending. Will update in the Same MR
## Reviewer request
-------------------
- Please provide an ETA when you plan to review this MR. Write a comment to decline or provide an ETA.
- Block the MR if you feel there is less testing or no details in the MR
- Please cover the following aspects in the MR
-- Coding design: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Logic design\>_
-- _\<Any other context mention here>_
OR
-- _\<Component 1>_: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- _\<CosmosDB>_: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- _\<ServiceBus>_ _\<Reviewer3>_
-- _\<Mention any other component and owner>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->M12 - Release 0.15Krishna Nikhil VedurumudiKrishna Nikhil Vedurumudihttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/201Fix for adding api name in logs.2023-08-18T12:43:12ZHarsheet ShahFix for adding api name in logs.## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
This fix is to add the columns for api method and operation name in logs.
* [YES/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it? Ye...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
This fix is to add the columns for api method and operation name in logs.
* [YES/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it? Yes
* [YES/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly. NA
* [YES/NO/NA] I have added tests to cover my changes.Yes
* [YES/NO/NA] All new and existing tests passed. Yes
* [YES/NO/NA] My code follows the code style of this project. Yes
* [YES/NO/NA] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission. Yes
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
https://dev.azure.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/Open%20Energy%20Platform/_workitems/edit/7658
<!-- This changes is regarding adding columns in logs for business telemetry purpose. -->
High level design:
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
<!-- Please add implementation details of current set of changes and how the code changes are
doing what they are expected to do. Are there any complex loops or designated code blocks that
should be elaborated? Is there some contextual knowledge that the reviewer should be aware of? -->
Change details: After this change
Example logs:
Eg1: 2022-05-10 11:06:14.488 INFO MININT-PH6PVLC --- [nio-8083-exec-2] TxnLogger correlation-id=1ee41a0b-c42e-4f6f-9bb2-6edc837b6031 data-partition-id=opendes **api-method=GET operation-name={GET [/_dps/task-handlers/test/{testId}]} user-id=51d2f791-795b-4c8d-9657-cd23b1f9f2a7** app-id=: indexer.app End Web-API GET /_dps/task-handlers/test/harsheet/ Headers: {correlation-id:1ee41a0b-c42e-4f6f-9bb2-6edc837b6031,content-type:application/json} status=200 time=102 ms {correlation-id=1ee41a0b-c42e-4f6f-9bb2-6edc837b6031, data-partition-id=opendes}
Eg2: 2022-05-10 11:06:43.731 INFO MININT-PH6PVLC --- [nio-8083-exec-3] TxnLogger correlation-id=6dae3b30-3f36-4a36-a597-caae25c51c20 data-partition-id=opendes **api-method=POST operation-name={POST [/_dps/task-handlers/index-worker], consumes [application/json]} user-id=51d2f791-795b-4c8d-9657-cd23b1f9f2a7 **app-id=: indexer.app Start Web-API POST /_dps/task-handlers/index-worker Headers: {data-partition-id:opendes,content-type:application/json} {correlation-id=6dae3b30-3f36-4a36-a597-caae25c51c20, data-partition-id=opendes}
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [YES/NO] NO
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Pending items
----------------
<!-- Are there changes that you'll introduce in upcoming MRs and hence did not add in this one? Next steps of your
feature can also be mentioned here. -->
MR is about adding api/operation name in logs for azure
## Reviewer request
-------------------
- Please provide an ETA when you plan to review this MR. Write a comment to decline or provide an ETA.
- Block the MR if you feel there is less testing or no details in the MR
- Please cover the following aspects in the MR
-- Coding design: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Logic design\>_
-- _\<Any other context mention here>_
OR
-- _\<Component 1>_: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- _\<CosmosDB>_: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- _\<ServiceBus>_ _\<Reviewer3>_
-- _\<Mention any other component and owner>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->M12 - Release 0.15Harsheet ShahHarsheet Shah