* progress
* missing
* fix comp errors
* remove comments
* Bad merge with my recent changes to master
* Format
Co-authored-by: Ahson Khan <ahson_ahmedk@yahoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Anton Kolesnyk <41349689+antkmsft@users.noreply.github.com>
This would unblock #2010.
Closes#2032.
Closes#1880.
I know this comes out of the blue, but it seems to me the right change to do. This is a proposal, let me know what you think.
First, I started with the fact that we need to make `CancelWhen()` public.
Then, I realized that I don't like the `CancelWhen()` naming. `CancelAt()` is better?
But `CancelAt()` sounds like an order to do something, not as getter.
So, it should be named `Get...`. `GetCancelWhen()`? `GetCancelAt()`? Sounds strage.
`GetDeadline()` - not bad, bit it is not that clear, what the deadline is.
And I looked at the `WithDeadline()` method. And in comment, the first line is `@brief Create a context with expiration.`.
"Expiration" sounds better explanation for the essense of the "deadline".
So, I went with `GetExpiration()`. I think "Expiration" is also a better name, because should we want to add the method called "bool IsExpired()", it comes naturally using the existing terminology, sounds better than "`IsPastDeadline()`".
Next thing - if we have "`GetExpiration()`", it is strange to have a method called `Get()`. So, we have `WithExpiration()` and `WithValue()`. So, it sounds like the getter should be called `GetValue()`. I did that rename as well.
Then, I looked at "`With...`" method naming. It is a factory method. If for getters we have `Get`, then for factory methods we should have `Create`. So, I renamed `WithExpiration()` and `WithValue()` to `CreateWithExpiration()` and `CreateWithValue()`.
Then I looked at `Context::time_point` typedef. First, in general, if we can avoid public typedefs, it is better, because we don't need to document them and worry if we broke client code when we change them.
Second, it is strange that we use `Azure::DateTime` everywhere, but not in context.
So, I replaced it with `Azure::DateTime`. It is good because it allows us to drop to/from epoch conversions (#1880), and really all that extra dance we do to cast to representation and back to datetime is the ways to stay within legal type casting limits of compiler type declaration, while in reality there isn't much that is happening in the code: `DateTime` is essentially an `int64`, and with all these conversions to epoch time, then to representation and back, compiler does not generate real code, it still operates with that only `int64`.
Why we cast to `DateTime::rep` and back at all? Context stores it as `atomic`, and I am not questioning that. You can't get `std::atomic<DateTime>` today explicitly, so we "extract" representation (`int64`) and store it as `std::atomic<DateTime::rep>`, which is the same thing as `std::atomic_int64`.
-- Update: --
1. "Expiration" => "Deadline" (Jeffrey's request)
2. Added `Context::HasExpiration()` (response to Jinming) // plus, we do have `HasValue()` so why not have `HasDeadline()`.
3. `WithDeadline()`, `WithValue` => Two overloads of `CreateChildContext()` (my own initiative).
-- Update 2: --
`CreateChildContext()` => `WithDeadline()`, `WithValue`
-- Update 3: --
Removed `HasDeadline()`
* Increment package version after release of azure-storage-common
* Increment package version after release of azure-storage-blobs
* Increment package version after release of azure-storage-files-datalake
* Increment package version after release of azure-storage-files-shares
* Revert the ordering change for beta.6.
Co-authored-by: Ahson Khan <ahkha@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Ahson Khan <ahson_ahmedk@yahoo.com>
* Fix the date in the changelog for storage beta.6 packages using the correct year to avoid auto version bump PR re-ordering it
* Fix the year for common beta.6
* Fix the CL year for shares beta.6
* Fix the CL year for datalake beta.6
# Pull Request Checklist
Please leverage this checklist as a reminder to address commonly occurring feedback when submitting a pull request to make sure your PR can be reviewed quickly:
See the detailed list in the [contributing guide](https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-cpp/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#pull-requests).
- [x] [C++ Guidelines](https://azure.github.io/azure-sdk/cpp_introduction.html)
- [x] Doxygen docs
- [x] Unit tests
- [x] No unwanted commits/changes
- [x] Descriptive title/description
- [x] PR is single purpose
- [x] Related issue listed
- [x] Comments in source
- [x] No typos
- [x] Update changelog
- [x] Not work-in-progress
- [x] External references or docs updated
- [x] Self review of PR done
- [x] Any breaking changes?
closes https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-cpp/issues/1869
# Pull Request Checklist
Please leverage this checklist as a reminder to address commonly occurring feedback when submitting a pull request to make sure your PR can be reviewed quickly:
See the detailed list in the [contributing guide](https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-cpp/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#pull-requests).
- [x] [C++ Guidelines](https://azure.github.io/azure-sdk/cpp_introduction.html)
- [x] Doxygen docs
- [x] Unit tests
- [x] No unwanted commits/changes
- [x] Descriptive title/description
- [x] PR is single purpose
- [x] Related issue listed
- [x] Comments in source
- [x] No typos
- [x] Update changelog
- [x] Not work-in-progress
- [x] External references or docs updated
- [x] Self review of PR done
- [x] Any breaking changes?
* Move changelog entry to correct place
* Reformat breaking changes
* New feature in the right place
* body_stream.hpp
* Backtick
* Add changes made for Context
* More updates
* More updates
Co-authored-by: Anton Kolesnyk <antkmsft@users.noreply.github.com>
* Moved the `Base64Encode()` and `Base64Decode()` functions to be static members of a `Convert` class within the `Azure::Core` namespace.
* Add the class name in the source file for posix.
Usability studies found that static methods are generally not as user-friendly as instance methods. Folks new to the SDK have harder time discovering the APIs, they reverse the flow of typing, and the calling code ends up a bit more verbose because you have to spell out the whole namespace and type name when there aren't any using directives.
There doesn't seem to be a strong benefit or feasibility reason to keep these method statics which are typically harder to use and discover.
cc @kyle-patterson
Part of https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-cpp/issues/1789
From Jeff:
> BodyStream is only exposed to users when uploading/downloading bytes. Except for Storage almost no services do this at all; they read the stream and deserialize into a structure and the customer gets the structure - not the stream. Azure::Core:IO is a fine namespace.
* For consistency within the SDK, move Azure::Core::Context to be the last
parameter for various Azure::Core APIs.
* Fix merge conflict due to log policy file change.
* Update new client options tests
* Moved `BodyStream` and its derived types from `Azure::Core::Http`
namespace to `Azure::IO`, and update headers.
* Fix up clang formatting.
* Add missing winhttp bodystream namespace change.
* Update merge conflict related changes.
* Update header paths in includes.
* Add CaseInsensitiveMap<T>
* Drop unneccessary namespace qualification
* Comment working: more accurate description
* GCC and Clang fix (typename specification) + doxy comments for template parameters
* Remove Allocator template parameter - we can add it later if we need it, currently no need to commit to having it there
* Drop <T> template parameter. We can add it later with default value of std::string without breaking change
* Unit test
Co-authored-by: Anton Kolesnyk <antkmsft@users.noreply.github.com>
* Defend public headers against inclusion of Windows.h
... which defines some nasty function-like macros `min` and `max` when `_NOMINMAX` isn't defined. We prevent expansion as a function-like macro by inserting some token(s) between `min`/`max` and the following `(`. Most commonly that means wrapping the entire qualified-name in `()` a la `(std::min)(x, y)`, but an explicit template argument list (`std::min<int>(x, y)`) works as well.
* clang-format all the things
* Test coverage
I assume that the `azure-meow-common` headers are fully covered by the tests for the `azure-meow-woof` SDKs.
* Increment package version after release of azure-storage-common
* Increment package version after release of azure-storage-blobs
* Increment package version after release of azure-storage-files-datalake
* Increment package version after release of azure-storage-files-shares
* Address implementation level feedback for Md5Hash and delete ctors.
* Address docs feedback.
* Address PR feedback
* Move the copy ctor deletion from Md5Hash to the base class.
* Remove re-assignment of Crc64Hash in tests.
* Add MD5 hashing APIs to Azure::Core available from azure/core/md5.hpp.
* Add simplified header test for md5 and base64.
* Add changelog entry.
* Remove unnecessary include.
* Remove Storage::Md5 and replace it with the one from Azure::Core.
* Fix clang formatting.
* Add required cstdint include directive.
* Update storage based on recent changes to Md5 hash APIs.
* Add VcPkg OpenSSL dependency for Azure::Core
* OpenSSL is not required on UWP either
Co-authored-by: Anton Kolesnyk <antkmsft@users.noreply.github.com>
