generates test lists for CI sanity 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
- [x] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
#4754
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
adds local sanity tests for lists
for reference:
- `lists` do not have `folders` concept, they are directly created in a site. As a result cannot be restored to a different folder to test. Therefore they need to be created in adjacent to the 'backed-up' lists. Due to this there is a requirement of `SANITY_TEST_RESTORE_CONTAINER_PREFIX`. Using this, during restore check, this env-var is used to find restored lists.
- Similarly, `SANITY_TEST_SOURCE_CONTAINER` is also used a prefix matcher to filter created test lists
- When exported, lists are stored in local into the provided directory as `<SANITY_TEST_RESTORE_CONTAINER>/Lists/<list-id>/<list-id>.json`
should go in after:
- https://github.com/alcionai/corso/pull/5024
- https://github.com/alcionai/corso/pull/5026
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [x] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
#### Issue(s)
#4754
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🐛 Bugfix
- [x] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [x] 💻 CI/Deployment
#### Issue(s)
* #5081
#### Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
There are a few more pending items. I've added TODO entries for them. The PR was getting pretty big and so I thought I would address them in a followup PR.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 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
- [ ] 🧹 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/3890
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
<!-- PR description-->
---
#### 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. -->
* closes https://github.com/alcionai/corso/issues/3891
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
skips cleanup of hidden list considering them system generated and delete attempt for them would result in graph error `General exception while processing`
list details response for list `Corso_Restore_23-Dec-2023_14-54-05_Sharing Links` of 'hidden' type
```
{
"@odata.context": "https://graph.microsoft.com/v1.0/$metadata#sites('4892edf5-2ebf-46be-a6e5-a40b2cbf1c1a')/lists/$entity",
"@odata.etag": "\"35697c04-415d-44ad-b328-527e32a20126,1\"",
"createdDateTime": "2023-12-23T14:54:36Z",
"description": "Use this list to track documents which have internal or anonymous sharing links in the site.",
"eTag": "\"35697c04-415d-44ad-b328-527e32a20126,1\"",
"id": "35697c04-415d-44ad-b328-527e32a20126",
"lastModifiedDateTime": "2023-12-23T14:55:07Z",
"name": "Corso_Restore_23Dec2023_145405_Sharing Links",
"webUrl": "https://10rqc2.sharepoint.com/sites/CorsoCI/Corso_Restore_23Dec2023_145405_Sharing%20Links",
"displayName": "Corso_Restore_23-Dec-2023_14-54-05_Sharing Links",
"createdBy": {
"user": {
"displayName": "SharePoint App"
}
},
"parentReference": {
"siteId": "10rqc2.sharepoint.com,4892edf5-2ebf-46be-a6e5-a40b2cbf1c1a,38ab6d06-fc82-4417-af93-22d8733c22be"
},
"list": {
"contentTypesEnabled": false,
"hidden": true,
"template": "sharingLinks"
}
}
```
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [x] 💻 CI/Deployment
#### Issue(s)
https://github.com/alcionai/corso/actions/runs/7312141926/job/19922423733
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [x] 💚 E2E
Now that optiosn are being broken up a bit more passing a struct of a single type to the service handler initializer doesn't make much sense. Just remove the parameter since it was unused anyway.
---
#### 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
#### Issues
- #4896
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Part 1 of two changes I've been carting around since the hackathon.
This PR moves the /cli/config package into /pkg/config. This allows
sdk consumers to access corso configuration handling, intead of
requiring the CLI package to access it.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 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
<!--- 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. -->
* #<issue>
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 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: --->
- [ ] 🌻 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. -->
* #<issue>
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 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: --->
- [ ] 🌻 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. -->
* #<issue>
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 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: --->
- [ ] 🌻 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. -->
* closes https://github.com/alcionai/corso/issues/4652
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 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: --->
- [ ] 🌻 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. -->
* #<issue>
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
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
<!-- 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
- [ ] 🕐 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/3893
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ 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
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
#### 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
<!-- 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
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [x] 💻 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
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
refactors the common drive sanity checks to use the sanitree data container. Also expands the sanitree in two ways:
1. adds leaves (individual items) to nodes for granular data comparison
2. adds multi-type support for comparing nodes of different types.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
#### Issue(s)
* #3988
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [x] 💚 E2E
hands the backup resource into the drive collection for the handler to use to record as the siteID
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🐛 Bugfix
#### Issue(s)
* #3988
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
This reverts commit c3f94fd7f76f377e4728c715abbb8c7846e9fb25.
The specified commit is working fine for CI and development, but contains performance
degredation (solved in a follow-up pr) that we want to avoid for the next release. This
rever is temporary, and the changes will be re-instated after release.
---
#### 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
centralizes details command processing in the cli
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* #2025
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🐛 Bugfix
- [x] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💚 E2E
refactoring the sanity tests with three goals:
1. move from env vars to cli commands so that unsupported commands fail loudly.
2. set up support for groups restore and export testing.
3. introduce some code re-use throughout.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
#### Issue(s)
* #3988
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💚 E2E
Drive pager usage currently showcases strong coupling between two layers: drive collection logic processing and drive api. This PR separates that coupling by moving the full item enumeration process into the
API, and letting the collection logic process the
results. This acs as both a simplification of complex code, and a clearer separation of ownership between the two layers.
A detrimental side effect of this change is that drive item enumeration has moved from page-streaming
(ie: each page is fully processed before moving on to the next) and onto batch processing (ie: all items are stored in memory and processed in a single pass). Acknowledging that this is an unacceptable regression, a follow-up PR will appear shortly with better handling for stream-processing enumeration from the API layer as a standard part of the pattern for all pager
implementations.
---
#### 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
adds a container-of-things to reduce mostly-unused return value bloat, and updates some func names to be more appropriate to their behavior.
No logical changes, just renaming/movement.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
splits the functionality for creating a new repository struct, and initializing or connecting to it. This is the first step in a multi-step improvement for init and connect processing.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* #2025
#### Test Plan
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
Needed some changes in the func names.
``` bash
$ sed -i "s/By\([a-zA-Z]*\)IdString/By\1Id/g" **/*.go
```
<!-- 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
- [ ] 🐛 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 the release documentation and reveals all cli commands for groups and teams channelMessages and files support.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ✅ Yes, it's included
#### Type of change
- [x] 🗺️ Documentation
#### Issue(s)
* #3988
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* #3988
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
<!-- PR description-->
Introducing a new `Configurer` interface to abstract out storage config information(for s3, filesystem etc) from caller code. I consider this as a short term solution. We need to consolidate overall config handling in a better way, but that's out of scope for this PR chain.
Testing
* Most of the changes here are code movement under the hood. So relying on existing tests.
* I'll address any test gaps in a later 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/1416
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
<!-- PR description-->
One of the 2 remaining setup PRs before we can introduce local storage repos.
**Changes:**
1. Read storage provider(`provider`) from config file except for `repo init * ` or `repo connect *` commands.
2. Apply flag overrides based on provider type( e.g. `S3FlagOverrides` if provider is `S3`)
3. Propagate storage provider type to functions which read/write config. These functions arbitrate on config hierarchy - flags, env, config file, in that order.
**Reasons**
* Reason 1 is needed is because config file is the source of truth for storage provider for all commands except `repo init` or `repo connect`. In the exception cases, we pick the provider in command (e.g. `s3`) as the source of truth. e.g. consider a `repo init s3`, followed by `repo init filesystem`.During `repo init filesystem`, config file would indicate `S3` provider, but the correct behavior here is to select `filesystem` provider.
* One alternative was to push provider from the init/connect cmds into an override flag, and let the config code decide on hierarchy. However, this felt hacky. provider here is not a flag to begin with. It's part of init/connect commands.
---
#### 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. -->
* https://github.com/alcionai/corso/issues/1416
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
<!-- PR description-->
* Rename some flags to bring parity with corso cli flags. `--bucket-prefix` to `--prefix`, `--prefix` to `--object-prefix`. This is so that we can avoid passing overrides until sometime later.
* Ideally this change should not be needed. This is part of a stopgap solution to remove s3 coupling from corso cli package.
* A more architectural solution is [managing overrides using viper](https://github.com/alcionai/corso/issues/4219). That change is a bit more involved, so i'll be adding that later.
---
#### 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
Not sure if we wanna merge it as it might generate way too many conflicts, but this should help us add a linter in CI. If we are good, I'll add something that can do lints for this in a follow up PR.
Super hacky, but this fix was created using `while true ; do tree-grepper -q go '(argument_list "," @nope .)' | tail -n1| awk -F: "{print \$1,\"+\"\$2\" -c ':norm \$xJZZ'\"}" | xargs vim ; done`.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 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
- [ ] 🧹 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/3654
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
info.itemType already looks through each service entry to find the item type. A service nil check is redundant. Adds a qol func for asking if an itemInfo is a driveish item.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [x] 🐛 Bugfix
#### Issue(s)
* #3990
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [x] 💚 E2E
Bumps [github.com/microsoftgraph/msgraph-sdk-go](https://github.com/microsoftgraph/msgraph-sdk-go) from 1.16.0 to 1.17.0.
<details>
<summary>Changelog</summary>
<p><em>Sourced from <a href="https://github.com/microsoftgraph/msgraph-sdk-go/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md">github.com/microsoftgraph/msgraph-sdk-go's changelog</a>.</em></p>
<blockquote>
<h2>[1.17.0]- 2023-08-30</h2>
<h3>Changed</h3>
<ul>
<li>Weekly generation.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
</details>
<details>
<summary>Commits</summary>
<ul>
<li><a href="bd9689c25d"><code>bd9689c</code></a> Generated models and request builders (<a href="https://redirect.github.com/microsoftgraph/msgraph-sdk-go/issues/563">#563</a>)</li>
<li>See full diff in <a href="https://github.com/microsoftgraph/msgraph-sdk-go/compare/v1.16.0...v1.17.0">compare view</a></li>
</ul>
</details>
<br />
[](https://docs.github.com/en/github/managing-security-vulnerabilities/about-dependabot-security-updates#about-compatibility-scores)
You can trigger a rebase of this PR by commenting `@dependabot rebase`.
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-start)
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-end)
---
<details>
<summary>Dependabot commands and options</summary>
<br />
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:
- `@dependabot rebase` will rebase this PR
- `@dependabot recreate` will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits that have been made to it
- `@dependabot merge` will merge this PR after your CI passes on it
- `@dependabot squash and merge` will squash and merge this PR after your CI passes on it
- `@dependabot cancel merge` will cancel a previously requested merge and block automerging
- `@dependabot reopen` will reopen this PR if it is closed
- `@dependabot close` will close this PR and stop Dependabot recreating it. You can achieve the same result by closing it manually
- `@dependabot show <dependency name> ignore conditions` will show all of the ignore conditions of the specified dependency
- `@dependabot ignore this major version` will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this minor version` will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this dependency` will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
</details>
Now that kopia won't try to mutate state in read-only
mode it's safe to reenable the test ensuring backups
that were deleted are still available when opening
the repo at a specific point in time
This reverts commit 8d3fdeeb8dbd8dc68284c1d33b0b431d309b4f5b.
---
#### 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
- [x] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* closes#4031
merge after:
* #4089
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Currently failing due to minor upstream bugs. Disable until we can get upstream fixes in.
Revert this merge once upstream issues are fixed
---
#### 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
#### Issue(s)
* #4031
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Allows ignoring missing backups during deletion by
passing in an addition bool param.
Since this changes the API, we can remove the final
commit to make ignoring missing backups the
default behavior. This will change CLI behavior
though
---
#### 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)
* #4019
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
When looking for recently deleted backups, print the point in time that kopia will be opened at so that if we need to manually debug something the value is right there.
---
#### 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
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* #4031
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Allow SDK users to delete multiple backups
at the same time. This will result in fewer
kopia manifest blobs being made in S3 which
makes things simpler overall
This does change the name of the delete
function, which will break SDK consumers.
That change can be removed from the PR if
that's a better path forward
This does not add the ability to delete
multiple backups at once to the CLI. That
change should be fairly simple to do in
another PR if desired
---
#### 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#4019
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Only code movement, no code changes.
Moved services to `/internal/m365/services/{onedrive,sharepoint,exchange}`
Moved collections to `/internal/m365/collection/{drive,site}`
---
#### 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
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
After we delete backups, make sure we can still open an old version of the repo and list them.
---
#### 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
- [x] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
* #3799
#### Test Plan
- [x] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Bumps [github.com/microsoftgraph/msgraph-sdk-go](https://github.com/microsoftgraph/msgraph-sdk-go) from 1.12.0 to 1.13.0.
<details>
<summary>Changelog</summary>
<p><em>Sourced from <a href="https://github.com/microsoftgraph/msgraph-sdk-go/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md">github.com/microsoftgraph/msgraph-sdk-go's changelog</a>.</em></p>
<blockquote>
<h2>[1.13.0]- 2023-07-28</h2>
<h3>Changed</h3>
<ul>
<li>Weekly generation.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
</details>
<details>
<summary>Commits</summary>
<ul>
<li><a href="e276af0eaf"><code>e276af0</code></a> Generated models and request builders (<a href="https://redirect.github.com/microsoftgraph/msgraph-sdk-go/issues/542">#542</a>)</li>
<li>See full diff in <a href="https://github.com/microsoftgraph/msgraph-sdk-go/compare/v1.12.0...v1.13.0">compare view</a></li>
</ul>
</details>
<br />
[](https://docs.github.com/en/github/managing-security-vulnerabilities/about-dependabot-security-updates#about-compatibility-scores)
You can trigger a rebase of this PR by commenting `@dependabot rebase`.
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-start)
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-end)
---
<details>
<summary>Dependabot commands and options</summary>
<br />
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:
- `@dependabot rebase` will rebase this PR
- `@dependabot recreate` will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits that have been made to it
- `@dependabot merge` will merge this PR after your CI passes on it
- `@dependabot squash and merge` will squash and merge this PR after your CI passes on it
- `@dependabot cancel merge` will cancel a previously requested merge and block automerging
- `@dependabot reopen` will reopen this PR if it is closed
- `@dependabot close` will close this PR and stop Dependabot recreating it. You can achieve the same result by closing it manually
- `@dependabot ignore this major version` will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this minor version` will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this dependency` will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
</details>
