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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
1. moves the m365/graph package from internal to pkg/services/api so that options are accessible to sdk users.
2. exposes graph.Options in the api client.Service call.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
Preview backups may use different delta token query parameters
and we don't want them to get only changes from the last possible
backup. Avoid fine-grained tracking of this sort of stuff by just
discarding all merge bases
Keeping the bases as assist bases is fine because they'll only source
unchanged data when possible
---
#### 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
<!-- PR description-->
With #4497 changes, any counters that we log in graph middlewares ( e.g. `APICallTokensConsumed` or `ThrottledAPICalls`) will no longer show up in `BackupOperation.Results.Counts`.
This is because graph adapters and backup operation will be initialized with different count busses. Since the backup result counts are captured from the operation bus, we will lose out on any graph metrics captured in middleware layers. This PR unifies the busses.
Ill also add a regression check for graph metrics shortly
---
#### 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
Add an option to request a preview backup and tag the resulting backup
as a preview if the flag is set. Preview backups must complete
successfully with no errors in order to be tagged
This does not update the item selection logic, so right now preview
backups will contain all items that normal backups do. Item selection
will be refined in upcoming PRs
---
#### 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
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
#### 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
Bump the backup version and force a full backup if
there's a backup for teams/groups that has base(s)
from an older version of corso
This will avoid propagating older details formats
forward. Those formats don't have all the data
newer formats do
This is mostly a stop-gap, a more robust solution
can be added later
Manually tested that it forces a full 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
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [x] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* #4569
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Update the BackupBases API to return BackupBase
structs that contain both the snapshot and backup
model instead of having separate functions for
each. Minor logic updates to accommodate these
changes
This PR also updates tests and mock code for the
new API
Suggest viewing 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)
* closes#3943
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
uses the count bus in the kopia backup package.
This currently duplicates counts that we're getting
from the kopia stats. A later pr will remove the old
stats entirely in favor of the counter.
---
#### 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
To assist in debugging via logs, add the set of
categories an operation is acting on to the
clues set in the context
---
#### 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
<!-- PR description-->
remove start events from all operations
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [ ] 🧹 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/4440
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
Adds context embedding to pkg/count, and embeds
the backup, restore, and export operation ctx with the operations count.bus. The bus is extracted from the ctx in api middleware to track throttling response counts, as well as token consumption counts. Counts are globally tracked, not on a per-time or per resource basis.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🌻 Feature
#### Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
<!-- PR description-->
We were not catching missing snapshot ID sooner. Fixed it.
---
#### 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. -->
* https://github.com/alcionai/corso/issues/4305
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ 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: --->
- [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/3990
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
updaing the path package to the current naming convention. No logic changes.
---
#### 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
fix up the following bugs:
* reinstate previousPath in the metadata retrieval
* implement DoNotMergeItems for real
* nil pointer protection for the 'from' property
* some additional logging
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🐛 Bugfix
#### Issue(s)
* #3989
#### Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
Start setting things up to split the
base types into distinct sets. This
* Renames some functions
* makes a minor change to how bases
are "cleared" from the struct.
Instead of removing them, it just
hides them
Work in this PR will be used in later
PRs
---
#### 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)
* #3943
* #4178
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
<!-- PR description-->
1. Renamed `IsBackupRunnable` to `IsServiceEnabled` & extended to restore operation. Removed `checkServiceEnabled`. Reasons:
- The above 2 functions were doing the same thing. Removed `checkServiceEnabled` in favor of `IsBackupRunnable` since we want this check to be as soon as possible during backup/restore op initialization
- Renamed `IsBackupRunnable` to `IsServiceEnabled`, because a) we are only doing service enabled checks right now, b) common code that can be used for both restore & backup.
2. Wire corso code to use new helpers in internal/m365/common.go
3. Note: SDK wiring and related integ tests will be added in a follow up PR
---
#### 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. -->
* https://github.com/alcionai/corso/issues/3844
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
* Fix log message during hierarchy merging so it's not as confusing
* add reason for making a snapshot. This can be used to separate out later messages into item data snapshot and details snapshot during debugging
---
#### 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
Shuffle around some logic for details merging so that
we always attempt to extract a LocationRef from the
backup base entry that's currently being examined.
A LocationRef should always be available from either
the LocationRef field in the details entry (newer
backups) or by extracting it from the RepoRef (older
backups)
Manually tested incremental backups for exchange in
the following scenarios:
1. v0.3.0 backup (calendars use IDs in RepoRef) ->
incremental with this patch -> incremental with
this patch
1. v0.2.0 backup (exchange uses folder names in
RepoRef) -> incremental with this patch ->
incremental with this patch
The above tests should cover the cases where:
* base backup details don't have LocationRef for
exchange items
* base backup details have LocationRef for exchange
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
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* closes#3716
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* #3993
#### Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
No longer required by SDK users and not exposed directly to CLI users unless they're looking at the JSON output from details. This field is not documented anywhere though so there's no guarantees that we technically need to uphold with it.
Manually tested:
* restoring from a backup that had this field
* making a fresh backup without this field when the merge base did have this field
---
#### 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)
* closes#3986
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
Remove references to the kopia package from
`pkg/store` package so that kopia can import
that package itself. Do this by using
interfaces where needed in `pkg/store`
instead of concrete struct types
These changes will make cleaning up
incomplete backups a little neater since
that code will need to lookup both
manifests and backup models
This PR is just minor renaming and fixups,
no logic 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
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* #3217
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
<!-- PR description-->
This PR adds changes to persist backup models for assist backups. Primary reason for doing this is to ensure we don't lose corso extension data(deets) for items which were downloaded and processed by kopia during this backup op.
Note: This is 1/n PRs, and will not be merged into main until all n are reviewed, given we are touching state here.
**Changes in this PR:**
1. Error handling changes to ensure assist backups get persisted
2. Introduce tags for assist/merge backups. These tags will be used for filtering during base selection process.
3. Don't persist backups if they are not assist backup, and they have non zero errors.
4. Remove `LabelForceNoBackupCreation` criteria for not persisting a backup. More details are in [PR comment](https://github.com/alcionai/corso/pull/3905/files#r1278030140).
5. Switch kopia failure from non-recoverable to recoverable. More details are in [PR comment](https://github.com/alcionai/corso/pull/3905/files#r1278019992).
**What are assist backups?**
Below conditions must be true for a backup operation to qualify as an assist backup.
1. new deets were produced during this backup operation
2. we have a valid snapshot ID
3. we don't have any non-recoverable errors
4. we have recoverable errors
**A merge backup satisfies the following conditions:**
1. Is not an assist backup
2. No primary or recoverable errors occurred during the backup operation.
Tests will be added in later PRs.
---
#### 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. -->
* internal
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Update backup details merge logic to use assist
backup bases. As the modTime check is already in
DetailsMergeInfoer there's not much else to do
here besides wiring things up
Overall, this solution is an alternative to the
previous one. It works by placing all cached
items in the DetailsMergeInfoer instead of adding
them to details (assuming they had a details
entry)
During details merging, we can cycle through
all bases once and track only the items we've
added to details (so we don't duplicate things).
This works because we know precisely which items
we should be looking for
ModTime comparisons in the DetailsMergeInfoer
ensure we get the proper version of each item
details
**Note:** This requires a minor patch to how
we determine if it's safe to persist a backup
model because now backups won't produce details
entries for cached items until `mergeDetails`
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
- [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
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Moves the kopia.Reasoner interface out of the
kopia package and into pkg/backup/identity.
No logical changes here, just renaming and movement.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* #3993
#### Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
Add a way for SDK users to drop
kopia-assisted incremental bases
thus forcing item data redownload
if the item wasn't sourced from
a merge base
---
#### 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
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* #2360
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Add modTime as one of the things that the
DetailsMergeInfoer knows how to check against,
wire it into details merging, and populate it
during item upload
This will help merge assist backup base items
by allowing us to do a direct comparison on
modTimes if we add them to the
DetailsMergeInfoer during upload
---
#### 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)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* #<issue>
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
run `go get -u` to update all packages.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
Adds another inject container-of-things to hold
common properties used by backup collection producers.
No logic changes, just code movement, renames, and placing things into structs.
---
#### 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
Shift things so BackupBases is passed directly to
the kopia package which then extracts information
from it. This allows for fine-grained control
over kopia-assisted incremental bases and merge
bases. Generating subtree paths from Reasons is
also shifted to the kopia package
Also expands tests for better coverage of various
incremental backup situations
Viewing by commit may help and individual commit
comments usually contain reasons for changes,
especially for test removal
---
#### 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)
* #2068
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
Move tag generation from the backup op to the
kopia package. This makes it match the pattern
that finding base backups uses where a set of
Reasons and a separate set of additional tags
are provided
---
#### 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)
* #2360
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
Intermediate step to a few different goals including
* moving interface definitions to better locations while avoid cycles
* adding a flag to disable kopia-assisted incrementals
Create an interface and implementation for the existing Reason
struct. The goal is to set stuff up so that eventually the kopia
package can ask the struct for the subtree path to work with
when merging the hierarchy instead of having the backup operation
pass that information in
Code changes are mostly just turning stuff into a struct and
fixing up compile errors. Some functions have been excluded from
the struct (i.e. `Key`) and made into functions in the kopia
package itself
---
#### 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)
* #2360
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
ads operations level tests for advanced restore
configuration on all three services.
Code is largely boilerplate between each service, but with just enough quirks that full consolidation would require excess jumping through hoops.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
#### Issue(s)
* #3562
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💚 E2E
Moves operations integration backup tests into a
subpackage, and slices up the test folder into
multiple, service specific folders.
No logic changes, only code copy-pasting and
renaming.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💚 E2E
Now that BackupBases defines functions, leverage them
in other code to reduce the number of times we fetch
Backup models and leverage the stronger invariants
the new FindBases function has
---
#### 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)
* #3525
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
renames /internal/connector to /internal/m365. No logic changes in this PR. Only the dir rename, import renames, and one linter shadowing rename.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* #1996
#### Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
Don't read all the files that we need to restore, just the collections in the beginning. The rest of them are read using Fetch on demand when they will be restored.
I haven't tested for any changes in memory consumption, but this brings down time taken for "Enumerating items in repository" to <5s even for huge number of files.
<!-- 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/3011
* closes https://github.com/alcionai/corso/issues/3440
* closes https://github.com/alcionai/corso/issues/3537
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
This should massively speed up when restoring a collection with many
items. Will not impact much if we have a lot of collections with few
items each.
Numbers 🔢 :
- Restoring ~7000 files, mostly small, totaling 1.5GB
- Sequential: ~70m
- Parallel: ~50m
- Restoring 1200 50mb files
- Sequential: 4h 45m
- Parallel: <40m
---
#### 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. -->
* https://github.com/alcionai/corso/issues/3011
* closes https://github.com/alcionai/corso/issues/3536
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
Take the new base finder code, wrap it in
a thin wrapper and use it in place of the
previous way of finding base snapshots
This solution is not focused on efficiency
as it does result in looking up backup
models multiple times. It's more to get the
new way of finding bases out and then we
can go back and smooth things over when
we have the chance
---
#### 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
- [x] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* #3202
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
