## Description
DiscreteScopes is a vestigial func from when scopes contained the list of resource owners to track. That behavior is no longer in use.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
## Issue(s)
* #1617
## Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
## Description
Solidify the interface between BackupOp and KopiaWrapper by making Reason the de facto way to pass/generate tags for things. The Reason struct now includes a function to generate tags for that instance. KopiaWrapper also now hides the fact that it prefixes tags from other components
## 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
- [ ] 🤖 Test
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
## Issue(s)
* #1916
## Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
Remove OwnersCats so only the Reason struct or tags pass information
between BackupOp and kopia
Instead of having a separate struct (OwnersCats) to fetch previous
snapshots, generate and use reasons. While this results in some repeated
data, it cuts down on the number of distinct structs and simplifies some
of the code for getting previous manifests.
A future PR should create a shared function to create a service/cat tag
given a reason.
Only pass in a set of tags to BackupCollections. This pushes the onus
of generating the tags for later snapshot lookups to BackupOp and
creates a somewhat asymmetric interface as Reason is used for the lookup
but tags is used for the backup. This will be updated later so that both
paths use a common function to convert from Reason->tags.
Despite that, it may result in a cleaner interface with kopia (depending
on how far we want to push it) where tags become the main mean of
communication.
## 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
- [ ] 🤖 Test
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
## Issue(s)
* #1916
## Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
## Description
If a prior manifest is missing a backup, it should be handled the same way as when a manifest's backup is missing a details ID: the metadata is skipped, and a full backup is performed.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [x] 🐛 Bugfix
## Issue(s)
* #2062
## Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
Sets the default run behavior for exchange to use
incremental backups. The cli feature flag for enabling exchange incrementals has been swapped for a toggle that disables incrementals, forcing a full backup
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ✅ Yes, it's included
## Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
## Issue(s)
* #1901
## Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
Ensure that each (resource owner, service, category) set of data is only sourced from a single base snapshot when doing an incremental backup. If not, fallback to doing a full backup.
Failure to error out or fallback to a full backup may result in repeated or zombie items in the resulting backup as multiple Point-In-Time backups will be used to source the same data
Incomplete manifests are ignored as they are currently only used for kopia-assisted incrementals, not sourcing items/backup details info when making a delta token-based incremental backup
## 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
- [x] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Test
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
## Issue(s)
* closes#1945
## Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
## Description
In the event that a backup is completed but the details, somehow, isn't persisted, we want the next backup to do a full, instead of an incremental, backup. If we don't have this protection the following backups could end up in a bad state. Future changes will add better resilience so that the fallback isn't needed.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
## Issue(s)
* #1878
## Test Plan
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
Now that resource owners are identified via
the selector itself, rather than each scope, we
can remove the resource owner data from
scope production and data.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
## Issue(s)
* #1617
## Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
replaces the new api client methods with interfaces, to prepare for testing funcions with mocks instead of integration.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [x] 🤖 Test
## Issue(s)
* #1967
## Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
Checks for resource owner matches in the top
of the reduce func using the selector owners,
instead of waiting until the path match check.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
## Issue(s)
* #1617
## Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
Migrates code away from pulling the resource
owner from each scope, and instead usees the
selector as the canon identifier of the resource
owner.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
## Issue(s)
* #1617
## Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
Don't return nil if we had an error getting metadata. This gives us the best chance possible of having enough metadata retrieved from the best-effort restore execution flow to actually enable incrementals for some data category.
## 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
- [x] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Test
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
## Issue(s)
* #1777
## Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
## Description
In order to use the api layer as an interface, we
need the functions therein to be methods, so
that callers can leverage local interfaces. This
change introduces the api.Client, and begins
to spread it throughout the exchange package,
largely in place of graph servicers.
No logic changes have occurred here. The only
modifications are what is required to utilize the
api client.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [x] 🤖 Test
## Issue(s)
* #1967
## Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
In order to establish a standard api around our
graph client usage, and thus be able to mock
for testing, we need to migrate graph client
usage into another pacakge. This is the first
step in that process of refactoring.
All changes are code relocation importing and
exporting may change as needed. No logic
was altered.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [x] 🤖 Test
- [x] 🐹 Trivial/Minor
## Issue(s)
* #1967
## Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
Incremental backups can display progress bars
with 0 items to add or remove. This can cause
end-user confusion when hte bar completes
with 0 items involved. We should instead keep
those bars hidden.
Also removes the "heuristics" progress step.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [ ] 🐹 Trivial/Minor
## Issue(s)
* #1984
## Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
## Description
Adds a delta test case for exchange incremental
backups by moving one folder into another one.
Also sets up retrieving container IDs in the test
in preparation for other test control.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [x] 🤖 Test
## Issue(s)
* #1966
## Test Plan
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
If an item is updated, update the folder entries it belongs to.
Also contains a minor refactor - unexport `FolderEntry` to `folderEntry`
## 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
- [ ] 🤖 Test
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🐹 Trivial/Minor
## Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* #1812
## Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
## Description
Adds the base test framework for handling
incremental backups integration testing. Future
changes will add more tests to the table.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [x] 🤖 Test
## Issue(s)
* #1966
## Test Plan
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
Add a simple happy-path integration test to
operations backups. This test only attemps to
assert the most basic expectations: that
incrementals are runnable, and that they involve
less data than the initial backup.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [x] 🤖 Test
## Issue(s)
* #1966
## Test Plan
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
A little code consolidation in ops/backup integration
tests, to prepare testing incrementals.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [x] 🤖 Test
## Issue(s)
* #1966
## Test Plan
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
A quick refactor to clean up the code and split
op/backup testing between unit and integration
test sets, so that we don't bloat a single file.
No actual changes, just lift and shift.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [x] 🤖 Test
## Issue(s)
* #1966
## Test Plan
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
Adds a flag to the BackupCollections interface
that identifies whether the caller is running an
incremental backup or not. If they are, kopia
will utilize the previous base snapshots when
building the directory tree.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
## Issue(s)
* #1901
## Test Plan
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
Actually call the details merge function while performing a backup. If no base snapshots or `len(toMerge) == 0` then turns into a noop.
This PR contains a little extra refactoring to keep from initializing a struct multiple times. However, long-term we should probably refactor BackupOp to better fit the fact that we are now using interfaces as inputs to many functions for the sake of testing
## 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
- [ ] 🤖 Test
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🐹 Trivial/Minor
## Issue(s)
* closes#1800
## Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
## Description
Folder population now done when merging items in BackupOp. Also add more tests to make sure folders are actually populated properly in Details
## 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
- [ ] 🤖 Test
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🐹 Trivial/Minor
## Issue(s)
* #1800
## Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
## Description
Go through the provided bases, load their backup details, and check if
any of the items in them need to be merged into the details for the
current backup.
Has a small amount of logic to treat moved items as updated.
Also include all the tests
Viewing by commit may be useful
## 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
- [ ] 🤖 Test
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🐹 Trivial/Minor
## Issue(s)
* #1800
## Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
## Description
Generate a `map[old ShortRef]new path.Path` for every item sourced from a base snapshot during backup. Return this information at the end of BackupCollections so that callers can use it to merge backup details if desired.
This PR does a few auxiliary things as well:
* thread current and previous path through hierarchy merging
* add extra field to info tracked by corsoProgress to hold previous path
* provide current and previous paths to streamBaseItems function
## 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
- [ ] 🤖 Test
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🐹 Trivial/Minor
## Issue(s)
* #1800
## Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
## Description
Given a backup ID pull the backup details for the backup. This function will also be used during incremental backups as the backup details from the base snapshot(s) will need merged with the details generated by backing up new/changed items.
## 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
- [ ] 🤖 Test
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🐹 Trivial/Minor
## Issue(s)
* #1800
## Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
Allows the usage of incrementals via feature-
flag controls. Feature flags can be enabled
on a per-flag basis in either the cli (the flag
is hidden from users, normally) or through the
sdk by directly toggling the flag property
in the control.Options.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
## Issue(s)
* #1901
## Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
## Description
selector creation now includes a parameter for
a slice of resource owners (users or sites). This
is step one in migrating resource owner lists out
of scopes and into the selector. next step is to
have the selector utilize the primary list instead
of the per-scope list.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
## Issue(s)
* #1617
## Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
Framework for the SharePoint backup workflow.
### Special Instructions for Review
Ensure that the information used to build `path.Path` are in line with future PRs (@ashmrtn )
## Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [x] 🌻 Feature
## Issue(s)
* closes#1403
* closes #1474<issue>
* closes#1795
## Test Plan
- SharePoint Integration checked:
- `src/internal/connector/data_collections_test.go`
- `TestSharePointDataCollection()`
- SharePoint List basics checked:
- `src/internal/connector/sharepoint/collection_test.go`
- SharePoint Operational Backup:
- `src/internal/operations/backup_test.go`
- `TestBackup_Run_sharePoint() ` verified as operational during testing
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
## Description
Have BackupOp produce the paths for relevant subtrees in each snapshot and pass those to BackupCollections. This removes the need for code in the kopia package to call into more service/category-specific path package code, thus keeping the kopia package more generic.
As in #1828, prefix info for each subtree path is pulled from the Reason a snapshot was selected.
## 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
- [ ] 🤖 Test
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🐹 Trivial/Minor
## Issue(s)
* closes#1832
## Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
## Description
Use the Reasons a snapshot was selected to retrieve only the metadata
corresponding to those reasons. This will avoid having multiple versions
of metadata for the same (resource owner, service, category) tuple as
well as pulling in more metadata than required for some backups.
## 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
- [ ] 🤖 Test
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🐹 Trivial/Minor
## Issue(s)
* closes#1829
## Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Reverts alcionai/corso#1835 now that #1841 is in. That should help with the flakiness.
I will follow up with another PR after though that moves these tests to a post-CI job (we don't need to run these on every commit)
## Description
Adds an additional metadata collection: a folder
id to path string mapping. This collection is
created on backup, and retrieved along with
the delta metadata on the next backup, but is
not yet parsed or utilzed downstream.
## Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
## Issue(s)
* #1726
## Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
Initial changes to support SharePoint Lists being chosen for Backup Operations.
<!-- Insert PR description-->
## Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [x] 🌻 Feature
## Issue(s)
* close #1785<issue>
## Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
## Description
These tests have the highes rate of timeout
based failures, while providing the most loose
gurantees about system behavior. This will
temporarily disable them while we consider
separating our suite between integration
and e2e smoke sets.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [x] 🤖 Test
## Test Plan
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
Fixes two bugs: 1. building the correc tag key
when retrieving the prior backup id from a
manifest. 2. returning ErrNotFound when a
snapshot entry isn't found for restore. This
can occur for metadata if the service has
a prior backup that does not contain the
expected metadata files.
## Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
## Type of change
- [x] 🐛 Bugfix
## Issue(s)
* #1823
## Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
## Description
For each snapshot manifest returned when looking for previous snapshots for a given set of owners cats, return the reason the snapshot was selected. This will allow other code to select the correct metadata and base snapshot subtree(s) when making incremental backups.
An example of when all metadata and directories in a base snapshot may not be needed is
```text
backup create exchange --data email,contacts --users user1 -> B1
// uses B1 as the base
backup create exchange --data email --users user1 -> B2
// uses B1 as the base for contacts and B2 as the base for email
backup create exchange --data email,contacts --users user1 -> B3
```
## 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
- [ ] 🤖 Test
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🐹 Trivial/Minor
## Issue(s)
* closes#1779
## Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
## Description
Instead of relying on KopiaWrapper to create the OwnersCats for a
backup, have BackupOp create them from the selector and pass them in.
This is necessary as incremental backups will no longer see all the data
in the backup, meaning it cannot accurately create the OwnersCats
because some data categories or owners in the backup may not have had
changes.
OwnersCats are eventually converted to tags on a kopia snapshot and used
to lookup snapshots when trying to find base snapshots for incrementals.
Additional minor changes:
* use pointers instead of values when passing parameters
* set backup details OwnersCats to nil
## Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Test
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🐹 Trivial/Minor
## Issue(s)
* closes#1781
## Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
Configuration and attenion to the graphService
failFast is haphazard and has shared ownership.
This change removes that property from the
service, along with the ErrPolicy func, in favor of passing around a control.Options struct.
## Type of change
- [x] 🐹 Trivial/Minor
## Issue(s)
* #1725
* #302
## Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
## Description
When backing up exchange data, parse the
metadata collection of delta urls from prior runs
(if any exist) and pass those tokens along to the
fetch functions for re-use.
## Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
## Issue(s)
* #1725
## Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
## Description
In a backup operation, begins the operation by
retrieving all backup manifests and metadata
from prior operations.
## Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
## Issue(s)
* #1725
## Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
This PR uses a separate snapshot to store backup details instead of a Corso model (i.e. a kopia manifest).
Introduces a `StreamStore` that can be leveraged to store larger metadata objects. We can also leverage this
for incrementals or restartable backups going forward.
## Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [x] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Test
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🐹 Trivial/Minor
## Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* #1735
## Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
## Description
Starting off changes with a minor refactor. Hopefully will
keep code cleaner as we populate the backup operation in
the coming changes.
## Type of change
- [x] 🐹 Trivial/Minor
## Issue(s)
* #1725
## Description
Expand interfaces for `GraphConnector.DataCollections` and `kopia.Wrapper.BackupCollections` to include parameters that will be needed during incremental backups. This patch only expands the interfaces, it does not add any extra functionality and the passed parameters are currently ignored.
In the future, passing nil for any of the new parameters should result in the current "full backup" behavior that Corso has. Passing values in these parameters should enable delta token-based incremental backups (assuming all the required data is there for the incremental backup)
## Type of change
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Test
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🐹 Trivial/Minor
## Issue(s)
* closes#1700
## Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
