OS Core Lib Azure merge requestshttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests2023-07-13T03:28:14Zhttps://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/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/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/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/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/221Publisher facade changes for SB Failure logging2022-09-16T07:35:23ZNikhil Singh[MicroSoft]Publisher facade changes for SB Failure logging## Introduction
-------------------------------------
![image](/uploads/55a65b7535d72955c66e1aece1f3307e/image.png)
## Flow
PUT call to ingest record-->Record ingested in Cosmos db-->notification published to the Service bus---> Use...## Introduction
-------------------------------------
![image](/uploads/55a65b7535d72955c66e1aece1f3307e/image.png)
## Flow
PUT call to ingest record-->Record ingested in Cosmos db-->notification published to the Service bus---> Used by indexer services to make the record searchable.
## Problem statement:
The record get ingested in cosmos but the notification publish to service bus fails and hence record not searchable.
The approach to handle this case is described below.
## Solution approaches:
1st: Add retries logic to Service bus publishing and if it still fails after retry then raise the exception and fail the API with 500 Internal Server Error and keep the record in cosmos as it is.
Drawback: The notification for the record ingested in cosmos is lost forever.If you repeat the PUT call again it will create a new version for that record and generate notification for that new version.
2nd: If Service bus publish fails, throw exception and fail the API with 500 internal server error and rollback the record ingested in cosmos.
Drawback: Adding a lot to the latency due to the additional cosmos rollback.
In this MR we have finalized the 1st approach.M14 - Release 0.17Nikhil Singh[MicroSoft]Nikhil Singh[MicroSoft]https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/222Updated spring boot version2022-09-15T09:46:06ZDmitrii Novikov (EPAM)Updated spring boot versionhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/indexer-service/-/issues/56
- Updated spring-boot version 2.4.12 -> 2.7.2, lombok version 1.18.16 -> 1.18.24
- Fixed issue with deprecated actuator classeshttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/indexer-service/-/issues/56
- Updated spring-boot version 2.4.12 -> 2.7.2, lombok version 1.18.16 -> 1.18.24
- Fixed issue with deprecated actuator classesM13 - Release 0.16https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/223Add Azure Audit Appender and Logger2023-08-18T12:42:56ZAkshat JoshiAdd Azure Audit Appender and LoggerM14 - Release 0.17https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/224Upgrade First Part Library Dependencies for Release 0.162022-08-05T07:40:11ZDavid Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orgUpgrade First Part Library Dependencies for Release 0.16This 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: 20f7e3c9fd85301a83724eda0669c1224cc6a1b8
Maven: 0.17.0-SNAPSHOT
```
| Maven Dependencies | _Root_ |
| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------- |
| os-core-common | 0.15.0 |
| (3rd Party) com.fasterxml.jackson.core.jackson-databind | 2.13.2.2 |
### Dependency Information After the Upgrade
```
Branch: dependency-upgrade
SHA: 8f722fd7bde8fbe00aaf97ab3a09260234bfc649
Maven: 0.17.0-SNAPSHOT
```
| Maven Dependencies | _Root_ |
| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------- |
| os-core-common | 0.16.0 |
| (3rd Party) com.fasterxml.jackson.core.jackson-databind | 2.13.2.2 |M13 - Release 0.16https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/225Cherry-pick ' Upgrade First Part Library Dependencies for Release 0.16 ' into...2022-12-22T18:58:01ZDavid Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orgCherry-pick ' Upgrade First Part Library Dependencies for Release 0.16 ' into release/0.16Original MR: !224Original MR: !224M13 - Release 0.16David Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orgDavid Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orghttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/226Cherry-pick 'Updated spring boot version' into release/0.162022-12-22T18:58:02ZDavid Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orgCherry-pick 'Updated spring boot version' into release/0.16Original MR: !222Original MR: !222M13 - Release 0.16David Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orgDavid Diederichd.diederich@opengroup.orghttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/228Add user delegation sas method to generate signed url for Datalake storage2023-08-18T12:42:54Zharshit aggarwalAdd user delegation sas method to generate signed url for Datalake storage## 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. -->M14 - Release 0.17harshit aggarwalharshit aggarwalhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/230Logging | Removing line break in stack trace2023-08-18T12:42:52ZSrishti SharmaLogging | Removing line break in stack trace## 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/NO/NA] I ...## 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/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?
-------------------------------------
Issue: Exception in stack trace is split across multiple lines causing too many logs.
Bug 6422: https://dev.azure.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/Open%20Energy%20Platform/_workitems/edit/6422
Impact: This issue is resulting in too many logs.
Also impacts DRI's troubleshooting.
Target: Remove extra line or new line in exceptions so as to have more manageable logs.
log4j2.xml updated to remove new line character and add pipe separator instead.
Code update:
Original line 35 of log4j2.xml:
<PatternLayout pattern="%d{yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss.SSS} %5p ${hostName} --- [%15.15t] %-40.40c{1.} correlation-id=%X{correlation-id} data-partition-id=%X{data-partition-id} api-method=%X{api-method} operation-name=%X{operation-name} user-id=%X{user-id} app-id=%X{app-id}:%m%replace{%m}{[\r\n]}{|} %throwable{separator(|)}%n />
Updated line 35 of log4j2.xml:
<PatternLayout pattern="%d{yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss.SSS} %5p ${hostName} --- [%15.15t] %-40.40c{1.} correlation-id=%X{correlation-id} data-partition-id=%X{data-partition-id} api-method=%X{api-method} operation-name=%X{operation-name} user-id=%X{user-id} app-id=%X{app-id}:%m%replace{%m}{[\r\n]}{|} %throwable{separator(|)}%n />
High level design:
Issue: Exception in stack trace is split across multiple lines causing too many logs.
https://dev.azure.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/Open%20Energy%20Platform/_workitems/edit/6422
## Test coverage:
------------------
1. We tested the generated logs in IntelliJ Console and saw that the new lines are removed, and log size reduced.
2. We tested on Kusto and Kusto is also not showing new lines.
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- NO
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Pending items
----------------
## 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. -->M14 - Release 0.17https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/231Make datalake use Partition DNS endpoints2023-08-18T12:42:50ZKrishna Nikhil VedurumudiMake datalake use Partition DNS endpoints## 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. -->M14 - Release 0.17Krishna Nikhil VedurumudiKrishna Nikhil Vedurumudihttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/233change AZURE_AUDIT_ENABLED to false2023-08-18T12:42:49ZAkshat Joshichange AZURE_AUDIT_ENABLED to falseM14 - Release 0.17https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/234Revert "Merge branch 'update-spring-version' into 'master'"2022-09-15T08:30:34ZKrishna Nikhil VedurumudiRevert "Merge branch 'update-spring-version' into 'master'"## 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. -->M14 - Release 0.17https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/235add dependency logs to bulk cosmos apis2022-09-15T08:29:19ZNeelesh Thakuradd dependency logs to bulk cosmos apisAdds dependency logs to bulk CosmosDB APIs
## 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 documenta...Adds dependency logs to bulk CosmosDB APIs
## 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?
-------------------------------------
Add dependency logs to bulk CosmosDB APIs
## Test coverage:
------------------
Added and updated tests.
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [NO]M14 - Release 0.17https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/236Log Request charge info in dependency logging for Comosdb operations2022-09-15T13:41:09ZMina OtgonboldLog Request charge info in dependency logging for Comosdb operationsLog Request charge info in dependency logging for Comosdb operations
## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [YES] I h...Log Request charge info in dependency logging for Comosdb operations
## 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?
-------------------------------------
Add Request charge info in dependency matrix for findItemInternal, queryItemsPage, bulkInsert
## Test coverage:
------------------
Updated
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [NO]M14 - Release 0.17https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/237Replaced insert bulk operation with upsert for cosmos client2022-09-01T16:14:59ZDmitrii Novikov (EPAM)Replaced insert bulk operation with upsert for cosmos clientReplaced type of operation from insert to replace due to breaking changes in following MRs:
https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/storage/-/merge_requests/427
https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/...Replaced type of operation from insert to replace due to breaking changes in following MRs:
https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/storage/-/merge_requests/427
https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/211M13 - Release 0.16Dmitrii Novikov (EPAM)Dmitrii Novikov (EPAM)https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/238add missing RU on dependency logs for QUERY_ITEMS API2023-08-18T12:42:47ZNeelesh Thakuradd missing RU on dependency logs for QUERY_ITEMS API## All Submissions:
add missing RU on dependency logs for QUERY_ITEMS API
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] I have updated the...## All Submissions:
add missing RU on dependency logs for QUERY_ITEMS API
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [NA] 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.
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [NO]M14 - Release 0.17