Remove byte array allocations from AmqpReceiver DisposeMessagesAsync

[danielmarbach]

Solves #20166 assuming you want to preserve the capability of dispose multiple messages at the same time. The before/after comparison is in the issue including perf comparison about the different approaches considered

All SDK Contribution checklist:

This checklist is used to make sure that common guidelines for a pull request are followed.

• Please open PR in Draft mode if it is:
  • Work in progress or not intended to be merged.
  • Encountering multiple pipeline failures and working on fixes.
• If an SDK is being regenerated based on a new swagger spec, a link to the pull request containing these swagger spec changes has been included above.
• I have read the contribution guidelines.
• The pull request does not introduce breaking changes.

General Guidelines and Best Practices

• Title of the pull request is clear and informative.
• There are a small number of commits, each of which have an informative message. This means that previously merged commits do not appear in the history of the PR. For more information on cleaning up the commits in your PR, see this page.

Testing Guidelines

• Pull request includes test coverage for the included changes.

SDK Generation Guidelines

• The generate.cmd file for the SDK has been updated with the version of AutoRest, as well as the commitid of your swagger spec or link to the swagger spec, used to generate the code. (Track 2 only)
• The *.csproj and AssemblyInfo.cs files have been updated with the new version of the SDK. Please double check nuget.org current release version.

Additional management plane SDK specific contribution checklist:

Note: Only applies to Microsoft.Azure.Management.[RP] or Azure.ResourceManager.[RP]

• Include updated management metadata.
• Update AzureRP.props to add/remove version info to maintain up to date API versions.

Management plane SDK Troubleshooting

• If this is very first SDK for a services and you are adding new service folders directly under /SDK, please add new service label and/or contact assigned reviewer.

• If the check fails at the Verify Code Generation step, please ensure:

  • Do not modify any code in generated folders.
  • Do not selectively include/remove generated files in the PR.
  • Do use generate.ps1/cmd to generate this PR instead of calling autorest directly.
    Please pay attention to the @microsoft.csharp version output after running generate.ps1. If it is lower than current released version (2.3.82), please run it again as it should pull down the latest version.

  Note: We have recently updated the PSH module called by generate.ps1 to emit additional data. This would help reduce/eliminate the Code Verification check error. Please run following command:

    `dotnet msbuild eng/mgmt.proj /t:Util /p:UtilityName=InstallPsModules`
  

Old outstanding PR cleanup

Please note:
If PRs (including draft) has been out for more than 60 days and there are no responses from our query or followups, they will be closed to maintain a concise list for our reviewers.

[ghost]

Thank you for your contribution @danielmarbach! We will review the pull request and get back to you soon.

[jsquire]

Once again, @danielmarbach - Thanks! The approach looks good to me.

[jsquire]

Do we ever actually call with multiple lock tokens? Unless I'm missing something, there seems to be only a single one wrapped in an array at each call site. This seems to be something that we call frequently as part of the core flow. Should we consider an overload optimized for a single token?

[danielmarbach]

We never actually call this with multiple tokens. Considering this functionality would no longer be needed the best way would be to remove the multiple token approach. This would also get rid of a lot of List and Array allocs entirely. I've pointed this out in the issue linked in the description.

The code only ever passes one lock token in so by getting rid of all the enumeration we could stackalloc the required memory for the guid and then marshal it into. This would also get rid of all the task lists etc and make the code in general more efficient or if the multiple lock token path needs to be preserved

But since nobody answered there, and I didn't know if the code is still needed or not I figured it is best to assume it is and went ahead with this approach. I've also considered having overloads but then I thought the redundancy involved might also be questioned during the reviews so I stuck to this one for now. Happy to change

[danielmarbach]

[jsquire]

Unfortunately, I don't have good insight into some of the nuances around the lock management nor potential future scenarios. @JoshLove-msft would definitely be the better option to make the call.

[danielmarbach]

Writing the alternative took me less than 20 min so I just went ahead and sent in a second proposal

#20427

[JoshLove-msft]

Alternative approach looks good.

[danielmarbach]

So close this one?

[JoshLove-msft]

Yep, I think so.