## 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
