Notification merge requestshttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests2023-08-18T15:26:25Zhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/70Log level gcp (GONRG-2101)2023-08-18T15:26:25ZRiabokon Stanislav(EPAM)[GCP]Log level gcp (GONRG-2101)## Type of change
- [ ] Bug Fix
- [X] Feature
**Please provide link to gitlab issue or ADR(Architecture Decision Record)**
## Does this introduce a change in the core logic?
- [NO]
## Does this introduce a change in the cloud provider...## Type of change
- [ ] Bug Fix
- [X] Feature
**Please provide link to gitlab issue or ADR(Architecture Decision Record)**
## Does this introduce a change in the core logic?
- [NO]
## Does this introduce a change in the cloud provider implementation, if so which cloud?
- [ ] AWS
- [ ] Azure
- [X] GCP
- [ ] IBM
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
- [YES/NO]
## What is the current behavior?
Notification Service logged debug events.
## What is the new/expected behavior?
Notification Service can log debug/info events depending on current env.
## Have you added/updated Unit Tests and Integration Tests?
## Any other useful informationM5 - Release 0.8Rostislav Dublin (EPAM)Rostislav Dublin (EPAM)https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/72Define OSDU_GCP_LOG_LEVEL for the service [GONRG-2132]2023-08-18T15:26:23ZOleksandr Kosse (EPAM)Define OSDU_GCP_LOG_LEVEL for the service [GONRG-2132]- Format gitlab-ci.yml
- Define LOG_LEVEL for the service [GONRG-2132]- Format gitlab-ci.yml
- Define LOG_LEVEL for the service [GONRG-2132]M5 - Release 0.8https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/76set log level to info for azure provider;2023-08-18T15:26:21ZYauheni Lesnikauset log level to info for azure provider;update log level for azure implementation from DEBUG to INFOupdate log level for azure implementation from DEBUG to INFOM6 - Release 0.9ethiraj krishnamanaiduNitin-slbNeelesh ThakurSherman YangAlok JoshiViacheslav Tarasov - SLBYauheni LesnikauTika Lestari [SLB]ethiraj krishnamanaiduhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/78multitenant-v22023-08-18T15:26:20ZRucha Deshpandemultitenant-v2M6 - Release 0.9Rucha DeshpandeRucha Deshpandehttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/79Fixed 5xx errors2023-08-18T15:26:18ZSanjeev-SLBFixed 5xx errorsM6 - Release 0.9Komal MakkarKomal Makkarhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/83add log ignoring for /swagger-ui.html health check;2023-08-18T15:26:17ZYauheni Lesnikauadd log ignoring for /swagger-ui.html health check;M7 - Release 0.10Yauheni LesnikauYauheni Lesnikauhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/84Added partition variables2023-08-18T15:26:15ZOleksii Tsyganov (EPAM)Added partition variablesM6 - Release 0.9Oleksii Tsyganov (EPAM)Oleksii Tsyganov (EPAM)https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/85Partion service as tenantinfo provider (GONRG-2498)2023-08-18T15:26:14ZRiabokon Stanislav(EPAM)[GCP]Partion service as tenantinfo provider (GONRG-2498)# Description:
Added optional service that replace TenantInfoFactory with implementation that utilize Partition Service<br/>
# How to test:
Functionality was tested with Partition service, Storage service successfully consume TenantInf...# Description:
Added optional service that replace TenantInfoFactory with implementation that utilize Partition Service<br/>
# How to test:
Functionality was tested with Partition service, Storage service successfully consume TenantInfo from Partition Service
# Changes include:
- [x] Refactor (a non-breaking change that improves code maintainability).
- [ ] Bugfix (a non-breaking change that solves an issue).
- [x] New feature (a non-breaking change that adds functionality).
- [ ] Breaking change (a change that is not backward-compatible and/or changes current functionality).
# Changes in:
- [x] GCP
- [ ] Azure
- [ ] AWS
- [ ] IBM
# Dev Checklist:
- [ ] Added Unit Tests, wherever applicable.
- [x] Updated the Readme, if applicable.
- [x] Existing Tests pass
- [x] Verified functionality locally
- [x] Self Reviewed my code for formatting and complex business logic.
# Other comments:
Dependencies:<br/>
https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/gcp/os-core-lib-gcp/-/merge_requests/12 <br/>
https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/core/os-core-common/-/merge_requests/73 <br/>M7 - Release 0.10Riabokon Stanislav(EPAM)[GCP]Riabokon Stanislav(EPAM)[GCP]https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/86Storage-Notification Integration Test2023-08-18T15:26:12ZNikhil Singh[MicroSoft]Storage-Notification Integration Test## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?
* [NO] I have u...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?
* [NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [NA] I have added tests to cover my changes.
* [NA] All new and existing tests passed.
* [YES] My code follows the code style of this project.
* [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. -->
The PR contains the implementation of integration test scenario for Storage-Notification flow.
Records have been created by storage service and a subscription has been created for test topic as part of setup. The flow includes the successful delivery of notification at the test endpoint which is verified
by querying the cosmos DB for the test acknowledgement subscription created by the test endpoint
after acknowledging the notification received by Notification Service.
High level design:
The StorageIntegrationDescriptor contains the details for the storage API and TestStorageIntegration
contains the end to end test cases.
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/issues/20
<!-- 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:
The following classes under notification-test-core has been modified to support the integration tests.
1-Config --> Addition of Storage Host URL
2-RestDescriptor --> Support to run multiple URL's
3-TestUtils --> Support to run multiple URL's
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
## 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
----------------
<!-- 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: _\<Komal/Vishnu/Harshit>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Komal/Vishnu/Harshit>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Komal/Vishnu/Harshit>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->M8 - Release 0.11Nikhil Singh[MicroSoft]Nikhil Singh[MicroSoft]https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/87Notification Service Refactoring2023-08-18T15:26:11ZNikhil Singh[MicroSoft]Notification Service Refactoring## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?
* [NO] I have u...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?
* [NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [NO] I have added tests to cover my changes.
* [NA] All new and existing tests passed.
* [YES] My code follows the code style of this project.
* [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. -->
The MR contains changes to redesign notification service in order to make the code extensible
and support multiple message brokers in future.
High level design:
In the PubSubEndpoint Controller, handlers have been added in order to call the functions
which fetches out the subscription and notify the subscriber endpoint.
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/issues/25
<!-- 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? -->
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
## 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
----------------
<!-- 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. -->
Implementation of POJO to contain request body details
## 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: _\<Harshit/Komal/Vishnu>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Harshit/Komal/Vishnu>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Harshit/Komal/Vishnu\>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->M8 - Release 0.11Nikhil Singh[MicroSoft]Nikhil Singh[MicroSoft]https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/88Add node selector2023-08-18T15:26:09ZDzmitry_Paulouski (slb)Add node selector## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] Have you followed our code review [guidelines](https://github.com/microsoft/code-with-engineering-playbook/blob/master/pull-requests/code-reviews/readme.md)?
* [YES] Have ...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] Have you followed our code review [guidelines](https://github.com/microsoft/code-with-engineering-playbook/blob/master/pull-requests/code-reviews/readme.md)?
* [YES] Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like us to include them?
* [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.
## What is the current behavior?
-------------------------------------
Currently, we have only one node pool for services and system workloads.
## What is the new behavior?
-------------------------------------
We are going to move workloads to a new node pool with enabled autoscaling. Here you can find the details:
[Issue link](https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/deployment-and-operations/infra-azure-provisioning/-/issues/167)
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [NO]
This change has a strong dependency on the following MR and should be merged **only** after it:
https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/deployment-and-operations/infra-azure-provisioning/-/merge_requests/324M9 - Release 0.12https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/89Upgrade libraries, change info logs to debug2023-08-18T15:26:08ZAlok JoshiUpgrade libraries, change info logs to debugUpgrading core-common and core-lib-azure libraries to incorporate debug logs into Notification service. This is an effort to reduce the cost associated with storing trace (info) logs.Upgrading core-common and core-lib-azure libraries to incorporate debug logs into Notification service. This is an effort to reduce the cost associated with storing trace (info) logs.M7 - Release 0.10Alok JoshiAlok Joshihttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/90Service Bus Implementation2023-08-18T15:26:06ZNikhil Singh[MicroSoft]Service Bus Implementation## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?
* [NO] I have u...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?
* [NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [N0] I have added tests to cover my changes.
* [NA] All new and existing tests passed.
* [YES] My code follows the code style of this project.
* [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. -->
The MR contains the implementation of Service Bus in Notification Service which allows notification service
to pull the notifications from the SB. The core usage of this implementation is to remove the gateway from
the notification flow.
High level design:
Following are the High level design components:
1-Adapters-The adapter design pattern is used to plug in adapter for SB->NS or E->SB->NS.
2-Service Bus Implementation
3-Service Bus Topics and Subscriptions listening on fly - One Thread will be running post a configurable delay to fetch new Subscriptions.
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/issues/25
<!-- 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:
The Thread scope DPS headers are there in order to support non request scope based usage.
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
## 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
----------------
<!-- 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. -->
Register Service will require changes to support CRUD operation for SB Subscriptions.
## 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: _\<Komal/Vishnu/Harshit>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Komal/Vishnu/Harshit>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Komal/Vishnu/Harshit>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->M8 - Release 0.11Nikhil Singh[MicroSoft]Nikhil Singh[MicroSoft]https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/92Changed authorize_api to v22023-08-18T15:26:04ZOleksii Tsyganov (EPAM)Changed authorize_api to v2M7 - Release 0.10Oleksii Tsyganov (EPAM)Oleksii Tsyganov (EPAM)https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/93Fixing vulnerable packages, AWS Updates2023-08-18T15:26:03ZSpencer Suttonsuttonsp@amazon.comFixing vulnerable packages, AWS Updates**REASON FOR CORE CODE CHANGE**:
There were several vulnerable packages in notification's dependency tree. This MR is to resolve them for everyone.
https://ossindex.sonatype.org/component/pkg:maven/com.google.oauth-client/google-oauth-...**REASON FOR CORE CODE CHANGE**:
There were several vulnerable packages in notification's dependency tree. This MR is to resolve them for everyone.
https://ossindex.sonatype.org/component/pkg:maven/com.google.oauth-client/google-oauth-client@1.30.1?utm_source=dependency-check&utm_medium=integration&utm_content=6.1.6
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/search/results?form_type=Advanced&results_type=overview&search_type=all&cpe_vendor=cpe%3A%2F%3Afasterxml&cpe_product=cpe%3A%2F%3Afasterxml%3Ajackson-databind&cpe_version=cpe%3A%2F%3Afasterxml%3Ajackson-databind%3A2.9.9
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/search/results?form_type=Advanced&results_type=overview&search_type=all&cpe_vendor=cpe%3A%2F%3Anetty&cpe_product=cpe%3A%2F%3Anetty%3Anetty&cpe_version=cpe%3A%2F%3Anetty%3Anetty%3A4.1.38
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/search/results?form_type=Advanced&results_type=overview&search_type=all&cpe_vendor=cpe%3A%2F%3Aredhat&cpe_product=cpe%3A%2F%3Aredhat%3Aundertow&cpe_version=cpe%3A%2F%3Aredhat%3Aundertow%3A2.0.23
commit a792aeda
Author: Spencer Sutton <suttonsp@amazon.com>
Date: Thu May 27 2021 10:13:20 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
"Excluding springs default security, locking down mvn central"M7 - Release 0.10Spencer Suttonsuttonsp@amazon.comSpencer Suttonsuttonsp@amazon.comhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/94Azure - Fixing maven options for ADO pipeline2023-08-18T15:26:01Zharshit aggarwalAzure - Fixing maven options for ADO pipelineThis MR is fixing maven options in ADO pipeline for dev/demo as the build options set in maven options are not correct for azure module and core, it is building dependencies of other CSP modules resulting in failures plus caching option ...This MR is fixing maven options in ADO pipeline for dev/demo as the build options set in maven options are not correct for azure module and core, it is building dependencies of other CSP modules resulting in failures plus caching option is missing as wellM8 - Release 0.11harshit aggarwalharshit aggarwalhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/95Usage of Non Request Scope bean for Service Bus Flow2023-08-18T15:25:59ZNikhil Singh[MicroSoft]Usage of Non Request Scope bean for Service Bus Flow## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?
* [NO] I have u...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?
* [NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [NO] I have added tests to cover my changes.
* [NA] All new and existing tests passed.
* [YES] My code follows the code style of this project.
* [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. -->
The MR contains changes to remove the Request Scoped object TenantInfoFactory(from core-common)usage as the bean using it "SubscriptionCacheFactory" is further used by Non Request Scopes as well.
Providing an example, this comes under the Service Bus flow(Non Request Scope) as well when it uses the SubscriptionCacheFactory to fetch the subscription and perform Notification action. This flow is non request scoped and bean creation was failing for it.
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
NA
<!-- 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? -->
In the SubscriptionCacheFactory,we have used ITenantFactory along with headers to serve the same purpose of TenantInfoFactory.
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [NO]
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
NA
## 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. -->
No
## 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: _\<Harshit/Komal/Vishnu>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Harshit/Komal/Vishnu>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Harshit/Komal/Vishnu\>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->M8 - Release 0.11Nikhil Singh[MicroSoft]Nikhil Singh[MicroSoft]https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/96Tenant validation ibm2023-08-18T15:25:58ZRitika KaushalTenant validation ibmupdated os-core-lib-ibm version to 0.9.9updated os-core-lib-ibm version to 0.9.9M8 - Release 0.11Ritika KaushalRitika Kaushalhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/97Changing core lib azure version.2023-08-18T15:25:56ZKomal MakkarChanging core lib azure version.## Describe your changes
-------------------------------------
Change details:
<!-- 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 mig...## Describe your changes
-------------------------------------
Change details:
<!-- 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. -->
The core lib version minor change is incremented to make sure the service is functional.
## PR Checklist
-------------------------------------
* [x] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
## Pending items
----------------
<!-- Are there changes that you'll introduce in upcoming PRs 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 PR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->
This is the linked template for Storage Account, EventGrid and ServiceBus. have also added existing templates to DP and Compute cluster templates.M8 - Release 0.11https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/notification/-/merge_requests/99Conditional Header for Non Request Scopes2023-08-18T15:25:55ZNikhil Singh[MicroSoft]Conditional Header for Non Request Scopes## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?
* [NA] I have u...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?
* [NA] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [NA] I have added tests to cover my changes.
* [NA] All new and existing tests passed.
* [YES] My code follows the code style of this project.
* [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. -->
CredentialHeaderProvider is marked as primary Bean. This bean is applicable for request scope mechanism.
If any of the CSP's wish to override this bean to have their own implementation for non request scope then it would not be possible as this is marked as Primary.
## What are the change details?
-------------------------------------
<!-- 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? -->
We want the CredentialHeaderProvider core bean for 2 cases:
1-All CSP's except azure (property "requestScope.enabled" wont be there ,match if missing = true)
2-Azure Event grid -(property "requestScope.enabled" would be there with value = true)
For the case of Service bus we want our own Thread Scope Headers and core bean is getting ignored (property "requestScope.enabled" would be there with value = false)
If any CSP wish to override this bean, they can have the above mentioned property as false.
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
NA
## 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
----------------
<!-- Are there changes that you'll introduce in upcoming MRs and hence did not add in this one? Next steps of yourM8 - Release 0.11Nikhil Singh[MicroSoft]Nikhil Singh[MicroSoft]