<!-- PR description-->
Use `Clone()` on item properties so that we don't hold on to graph in-memory store references.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* #<issue>
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
<!-- PR description-->
Switch to using `custom.DriveItem` instead of `models.DriveItemable` during backups. There is a slight impact to restore as well, since backup and restore both use a few common interfaces e.g. `AugmentItemInfo`.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [ ] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [x] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* #<issue>
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
adds some new functions to the drive limiter that will be used specifically in the tree-based backup process. Also updates the limiter tests to have separate versions for the tree and non-tree variations. In this PR, the tree variation will definitely fail. The next PR will be focused on backup process corrections needed to ensure that the limit handling is correct according to the existing tests.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
#### Issue(s)
* #4689
#### Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
Add the required wiring for SDK consumers to set the min epoch duration
(and eventually other persistent config info). This is just boiler-plate
with some tests at the various layers to make sure that layer is run as
expected. More nuanced tests about setting various config values are
left to the code in `internal/kopia/conn_test.go`
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* #4782
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Some attachments have an "item" field instead of
"contentBytes". There are items like contacts, emails
or calendar events which will not be a normal format
and will have to be converted to a text format.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [x] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* https://github.com/alcionai/corso/issues/4772
* Needed for https://github.com/alcionai/corso/pull/4756
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
<!-- PR description-->
1. Move cache miss logs to debug, as it can be chatty sometimes. We will leverage the end of operation `URLCacheMiss` counter to get this information instead.
2. Counter renaming.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* #<issue>
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
This PR lays the groundwork for changing persistent config info in
kopia. Specifically, it allows setting the minimum epoch duration (but
does so in a generic manner that can be expanded on later)
This PR only adds the code to actually do the configuration, it doesn't
add wiring to make this new function available to other callers
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* #4782
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Switch the remaining call of iterating through
directory entries to explicitly use the iterator
instead of a helper function that takes a
callback
Mostly just just to switch everything over to
the new iterator and to reduce indentation of
things overall
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [x] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* closes#4457
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
now that folder handling is complete, we can ingest items in the delta tree as well.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
#### Issue(s)
* #4689
#### Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
<!-- PR description-->
We are logging a recoverable error in 2 places for the same failure during lazy item download. See the [code](6307d8cbf6/src/internal/kopia/upload.go (L228)) for the other location. For e.g. below 2 recoverable errors are referring to the same graph 400 failure.
`running backup: recoverable error 1 of 6: downloading item content: retrieving expired item: getting item: Invalid request: Invalid request`
`
running backup: recoverable error 2 of 6: kopia reported error: fetching item content: retrieving expired item: getting item: Invalid request: Invalid request`
Removing the duplicate since it can be confusing to the end user & devs.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [x] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [ ] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* #<issue>
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Makes modifications to the groups handlers to facilitate the incoming introduction of conversations backup handling. Changes include:
* new handler methods (canMakeDeltas and LocationRef)
* binding handlers to generics
* some naming normalization
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
#### Issue(s)
* #4536
#### Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
there are certain enumeration cases where tombstoning isn't the correct behavior, and we want to delete a folder from the tree entirely. This primarily occurrs when we have a create->delete pair of markers either within or across enumerations.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
#### Issue(s)
* #4689
#### Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
kopia/kopia#3365 switched kopia to use iterators
for traversing directory entries instead of
callbacks
This PR adds a new iterator struct that uses a
state machine to traverse the different data
sources we use to back a single directory passed
to kopia. While the state machine execution
logic is new, much of the logic for returning
individual entries is adapted from existing code
Recommend viewing by commit and possibly
ignoring whitespace changes
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [x] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* #4457
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
begins implementation of the drive delta tree support by adding boilerplate funcs for getting the backup data, and adding a framework of unit tests that will be used bring testing parity up to par with current tests.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Issue(s)
* #4689
#### Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
adds SetFolder and AddTombstone operations
to the drive delta tree.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
#### Issue(s)
* #4689
#### Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
Switch restore code path to use service-level handlers. Does a few
things:
* switches existing service-level functions to be methods on
service-level handlers
* update interfaces as necessary
* moves some logic from old controller-level restore function to either
the new handlers or the operation-level function
* removes old code
May be easiest to review by commit
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* #4254
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
Rework restore return status so that later PRs will have a smaller diff
Instead of returning a status and then waiting on the message just return the restore stats directly. The status getter was only setup to wait for one item anyway and was setup to wait after the entire restore operation already completed (at end of
m365/restore.go:ConsumeRestoreCollections())
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* #4254
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
Move `ResetLimiter()` call to defer block to ensure that it gets called even if the backup fails. Without this change, any following mailbox backups may get artificially throttled by limiter.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [x] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* #<issue>
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Log both the given limits and the effective limits so we can figure out if something went wrong.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [x] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Minor cleanup that will also help reduce diff for future changes.
Instead of taking in a details builder and adding to it during
restore, just create a local details builder and return the built
details to the caller
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* #4254
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [x] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Add logic and tests for preview backups in drive-backed services.
Does slightly change a few of the options for preview backup limits
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Switch to a cleaner way of disabling merge bases when making a preview backup. This sets the flag to not find merge bases instead of finding them and then dropping them.
Manually tested running a backup with `--preview` (local dev flag) and
`--disable-incrementals` and verified in the log that merge bases were
dropped
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
three changes
1. bumps the xsync package to v3
2. creates a common package for synced maps
3. replaces all xsync MapOf imports with the new common/syncd package.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
Just shuffling some variables and log statements around. No logic or
test changes beyond that
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [x] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
We were missing a retry for connection timeout issues. Adding it.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [ ] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [x] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* #<issue>
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
This completes the wiring for Exchange preview backups. A few notable
points:
* Adds new config substruct(?) for limits on items/data
* Adds "reasonable defaults" (very small) for Exchange data categories
* Adds "important" and "skip" containers for Exchange data categories
All the above can be tweaked as we determine what values work best
Manually tested
1. regular backup
2. preview backup
3. regular backup
Verified that no merge base is used for the preview backup and the
merge base made in (1) is used for the backup in (3)
This feature is not exposed via CLI
May be easiest to review by commit
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issues
Merge after:
* #4657
* #4607
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
A handful of the error sentinel values in graph/errors.go were only around to comply with an old expectation that IsErr funcs have a matching sentinel. That assumption is out of date, and there's no point in keeping around unused sentinels.
This PR makes three changes to clean up that issue:
1. remove unused sentinels (unused is qualifed as "not produced").
2. fix external pacakges which referenced those errors in tests alone by replacing those sentinels with odata errors.
3. centralize odata error test code to help support upstream package odata error creation.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
Increase proliferation of the count bus to record runtime stats.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
#### Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
Just a few minor updates to stats logic to reset the counters if the delta is reset and also only count items if they weren't previously seen and counted.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
This commit include a few things that improves the progresbars and other info messages are printed out during the CLI run.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [x] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [ ] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [x] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* #<issue>
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
<!-- PR description-->
2nd last PR in the chain. Wires up the new sliding limiter into exchange backup create flows. I'll add some e2e regression tests to wrap it up.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [x] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [ ] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [x] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* #<issue>
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
<!-- PR description-->
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [x] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* #<issue>
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
<!-- PR description-->
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [x] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [ ] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [x] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* https://github.com/alcionai/corso/issues/3893
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
<!-- PR description-->
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [x] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [ ] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [x] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* https://github.com/alcionai/corso/issues/3893
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Add logic to convert from msg(backup available in corso) to eml
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [x] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* https://github.com/alcionai/corso/issues/3893
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Currently we specify the service to rate limiter type bindings in `ProduceBackupCollections`. This means we lose the binding during `ConsumeBackupCollections` and default to using the exchange token bucket limiter for all services. Onedrive & SP are an exception here since we bind again during `streamItems`.
This PR moves the binding call one level above, to `do` scope so that the same bindings stay applied for the entirety of the backup op.
Note: This change has a slight side effect on integration tests which directly test `ProduceBackupCollections`. We'll default to using exchange token bucket limiter for such integ tests for all services. This shouldn't impact test runs too much since exch limts(16 per sec) or upto 1160 per min are still pretty good compared to 1200 per min for onedrive. Also, since these tests are short running & won't be doing a load test, we should be fine here.
If there is an objection, I can add rate limiter bindings manually for these `ProduceBackupCollections` tests.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* #<issue>
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
This continues the push towards having service-level handlers that know
how to perform different operations. It adds the helper functions that
will be used during restore operations to the existing handler code
This logic is not currently used nor does this PR change the restore
call path
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* #4254
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
introduces the delta tree in drive collections
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Issue(s)
* #4689
#### Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
this is an alternative possible response from graph api when the client is updating the token in-flight. We normally catch this for item downloads, but are defaulting on permission downloads.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ✅ Yes, it's included
#### Type of change
- [x] 🐛 Bugfix
#### Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
Switch the folder name granularity to microseconds instead of seconds to avoid collisions with other concurrent CI test runs.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [x] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Move the token bucket limiter (`rate.Limiter`) package behind a corso owned `Limiter` interface. This allows callers to request tokens without knowing what type of limiter they are waiting on.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* #<issue>
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
replace all cases of new|wrap|stack(...).WithClues(ctx) with the flattened new|wrap|stackWC(ctx, ...) functions introduced in the latest clues bump.
Other changes added:
* remove WithClues builders when the error producer already called it.
* corrected some usages of ictx within loops.
no logic changes, just cleanup.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
Allow callers of GetAddedRemovedItems to set the number of added items
they'd like returned from the call. Will eventually be leveraged for
Exchange preview backups
Doesn't change existing limits for pagers since everything uses the
default of zero for "get everything"
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Adds `WaitN` support in sliding window limiter. WaitN blocks the request until all N tokens are acquired. It addresses a concern raised [here](https://github.com/alcionai/corso/pull/4636#discussion_r1389686910) in an earlier `WaitN` implementation by ensuring that all N tokens get served to each request atomically.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [x] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [ ] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [x] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* #<issue>
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
This PR adds `Reset` support to limiter. In summary, it provides 2 things:
1. It resets limiter state & refills tokens to original capacity.
2. Reset is transparent to request senders, they can continue to call `Wait` even when reset is in progress. This is done using a new request level lock. It'll be useful towards `WaitN` implementation as well in a following PR.
Reason for adding `Reset`:
1. Corso CLI supports backing up the entire tenant. Since exchange service limits are defined on a per app per mailbox basis, if we don't reset the sliding window limiter in between n exchange resources, it'll artificially slow down n-1 resource backups.
2. This is because sliding window limiter front allows front loading the requests. This is not a big problem with token bucket limiter, since it refills tokens at a constant rate of 16 per second.
3. Ideally the rate limiter instance should be scoped to an exchange mailbox, and no `Reset` should be required. However, this would need some major refactoring of graph controller. Currently we use global rate limiter instances, and also the graph controller stays common for all resource backup operations. `Reset` allows us to keep using the global approach.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [x] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [ ] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [x] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* #<issue>
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Wrapper for existing graph.ContainerResolver structs that returns items
in priority order in the Items() function. Also has logic to filter out
containers if desired
This can help with things like preview backups where we only want to
backup a subset of items because it allows us to ensure we'll see the
containers we care about most first
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
