OS Core Lib Azure merge requestshttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests2024-03-20T11:36:24Zhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/340Added oid validation2024-03-20T11:36:24ZDeepa KumariAdded oid validationOID validation addition to address the issue: https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/security-and-compliance/entitlements/-/issues/166OID validation addition to address the issue: https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/security-and-compliance/entitlements/-/issues/166M23 - Release 0.26Deepa KumariDeepa Kumarihttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/339[MSOSDU-36231]Added OID Validation utilities and tests2024-03-12T11:59:35ZDeepa Kumari[MSOSDU-36231]Added OID Validation utilities and testsAdded interaction with Graph API to validate OID. Related issue: https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/security-and-compliance/entitlements/-/issues/166Added interaction with Graph API to validate OID. Related issue: https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/security-and-compliance/entitlements/-/issues/166M23 - Release 0.26Deepa KumariDeepa Kumarihttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/338Move Spring upgrade to a different module2024-03-11T07:07:18ZVidyaDharani LokamMove Spring upgrade to a different module# Description:
- Added core-lib-azure-spring6 module compatible with spring 6.
- Migrated to jakarta from javax in spring6 module.
# Changes include:
* [x] Refactor (a non-breaking change that improves code maintainability).
* [ ] Bug...# Description:
- Added core-lib-azure-spring6 module compatible with spring 6.
- Migrated to jakarta from javax in spring6 module.
# Changes include:
* [x] Refactor (a non-breaking change that improves code maintainability).
* [ ] Bugfix (a non-breaking change that solves an issue).
* [ ] New feature (a non-breaking change that adds functionality).
* [ ] Breaking change (a change that is not backward-compatible and/or changes current functionality).M23 - Release 0.26VidyaDharani LokamVidyaDharani Lokamhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/337update documentation in readme2024-03-19T17:14:21ZVidyaDharani Lokamupdate documentation in readme- Added the Jacoco code coverage report in the README.
- Updated the prerequisites with links.- Added the Jacoco code coverage report in the README.
- Updated the prerequisites with links.M23 - Release 0.26VidyaDharani LokamVidyaDharani Lokamhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/336Draft: update spring and spring-boot2024-03-11T07:07:29ZVidyaDharani LokamDraft: update spring and spring-bootVidyaDharani LokamVidyaDharani Lokamhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/335Java 17 migration2024-03-21T05:54:33ZVidyaDharani LokamJava 17 migration# Description:
Migration from Java 8 to Java 17.
# How to test:
Via Unit and Integration tests.
# Changes include:
* [x] Breaking change (a change that is not backward-compatible and/or changes current functionality).
# Changes in:...# Description:
Migration from Java 8 to Java 17.
# How to test:
Via Unit and Integration tests.
# Changes include:
* [x] Breaking change (a change that is not backward-compatible and/or changes current functionality).
# Changes in:
* [x] Common code
# Dev Checklist:
* [ ] Added Unit Tests, wherever applicable.
* [x] Updated the Readme, if applicable.
* [x] Existing Tests pass
* [x] Verified functionality locally
* [ ] Self Reviewed my code for formatting and complex business logic.
# Other comments:
* Upgraded 'lombok' & 'jacoco' plugin version to generate code-coverage report
* Changed TestRunner 'PowerMockRunner' to 'MockitoJUnitRunner'
* Removed 'powermock-api-mockito2' & 'powermock-module-junit4' dependencies
* Updated existing testcases to use junit-5M23 - Release 0.26VidyaDharani LokamVidyaDharani Lokamhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/334Draft: Java 17 migration2024-02-23T08:24:48ZVidyaDharani LokamDraft: Java 17 migration## 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. -->VidyaDharani LokamVidyaDharani Lokamhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/333Create Release candidate 3 from M22 milestone2024-02-16T07:47:41ZAnkur RawatCreate Release candidate 3 from M22 milestoneUpdated version of the libraryUpdated version of the libraryAnkur RawatAnkur Rawathttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/332429 exception handling for bulk update operation in storage2024-02-15T07:02:26ZAnkur Rawat429 exception handling for bulk update operation in storageCurrently, bulk insertion in cosmos DB functionality returns 500 in case of 429 error form cosmos DB. Updated the functionality to send 429 received from Cosmos DBCurrently, bulk insertion in cosmos DB functionality returns 500 in case of 429 error form cosmos DB. Updated the functionality to send 429 received from Cosmos DBAnkur RawatAnkur Rawathttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/331CosmosDB 429 Exception handling in Azure2024-02-13T13:53:38ZAnkur RawatCosmosDB 429 Exception handling in AzureCurrently, bulk insertion in cosmos DB functionality returns 500 in case of 429 error form cosmos DB. Updated the functionality to send 429 received from Cosmos DB.Currently, bulk insertion in cosmos DB functionality returns 500 in case of 429 error form cosmos DB. Updated the functionality to send 429 received from Cosmos DB.Ankur RawatAnkur Rawathttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/330CosmosDB 429 Exception handling in Azure2024-02-13T13:46:58ZAnkur RawatCosmosDB 429 Exception handling in AzureCurrently, bulk insertion in cosmos DB functionality returns 500 in case of 429 error form cosmos DB. Updated the functionality to send 429 received from Cosmos DB.Currently, bulk insertion in cosmos DB functionality returns 500 in case of 429 error form cosmos DB. Updated the functionality to send 429 received from Cosmos DB.Ankur RawatAnkur Rawathttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/329CosmosDB 429 Exception handling in Azure2024-02-13T10:37:56ZAnkur RawatCosmosDB 429 Exception handling in AzureCurrently, bulk insertion in cosmos DB functionality returns 500 in case of 429 error form cosmos DB. Updated the functionality to send 429 received from Cosmos DB.Currently, bulk insertion in cosmos DB functionality returns 500 in case of 429 error form cosmos DB. Updated the functionality to send 429 received from Cosmos DB.Ankur RawatAnkur Rawathttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/328CosmosDB 429 Exception handling in Azure2024-03-19T17:14:22ZAnkur RawatCosmosDB 429 Exception handling in AzureCurrently, bulk insertion in cosmos DB functionality returns 500 in case of 429 error form cosmos DB.
Updated the functionality to send 429 received from Cosmos DB.Currently, bulk insertion in cosmos DB functionality returns 500 in case of 429 error form cosmos DB.
Updated the functionality to send 429 received from Cosmos DB.M23 - Release 0.26Ankur RawatAnkur Rawathttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/327Rahulkhapre/azure release2024-01-17T09:23:44ZRahul KhapreRahulkhapre/azure release## 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/326[TEST] AzureAuditLogger debugging2024-01-16T12:46:36ZRahul Khapre[TEST] AzureAuditLogger debugging## 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/325make tenant cache thread-safe2024-01-17T05:09:57ZAlok Joshimake tenant cache thread-safeIn scenarios where there are many partitions (more than 50), we are seeing intermittent null values when accessing partition info from cache. Making the tenant cache thread safe would prevent this.In scenarios where there are many partitions (more than 50), we are seeing intermittent null values when accessing partition info from cache. Making the tenant cache thread safe would prevent this.M23 - Release 0.26Alok JoshiAlok Joshihttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/324update release version2024-01-10T17:29:10ZChristophe Monginupdate release version## 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/323Fix s360 vulnerability (json version)2024-01-09T22:29:09ZChristophe MonginFix s360 vulnerability (json version)## 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/322Fix s360 vulnerability for json dependency on v0.212024-01-10T17:12:49ZChristophe MonginFix s360 vulnerability for json dependency on v0.21## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
<!-- Please describe the current behavior that you are modifying, 'or' link to a releva...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
## 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. -->
"risk": HIGH,
"vuln_id": 995571,
"vuln_name": Java (Maven) Security Update for org.json:json (GHSA-rm7j-f5g5-27vv),
"cve": [CVE-2023-5072,http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2023-5072],
"VulnerabilityId": 995935,
"VulnerabilityName": Java (Maven) Security Update for org.json:json (GHSA-4jq9-2xhw-jpx7),
"CVEs": [CVE-2023-5072,http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2023-5072]
<!-- 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/321Fix support more than 10 patch operations in a single request2024-01-22T17:21:18ZYurii KondakovFix support more than 10 patch operations in a single request## Type of change
- [x] Bug Fix
## Does this introduce a change in the cloud provider implementation, if so which cloud?
- [ ] AWS
- [X] Azure
- [ ] Google Cloud
- [ ] IBM
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
- [NO]
Currently,...## Type of change
- [x] Bug Fix
## Does this introduce a change in the cloud provider implementation, if so which cloud?
- [ ] AWS
- [X] Azure
- [ ] Google Cloud
- [ ] IBM
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
- [NO]
Currently, we have a limit of 10 operations on the maximum number of patch operations due to limitations on the part of Azure Cosmos DB.
[Partial document update in Azure Cosmos DB](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/partial-document-update)
For the API consumers, this number is less by 2, i.e. 8, as we add two more patch operations internally (at storage service).
> It's possible to execute multiple patch operations on a single document. The maximum limit is 10 operations. Multi-document patch: Multiple documents within the same partition key can be patched as a part of a transactionM23 - Release 0.26Yurii KondakovYurii Kondakov