Cleanup ODataIdResolvers and E2E tests

[KenitoInc]

Issues

This pull request fixes #xxx.

Description

Since we removed ODataIdResolver and changed the GetHandler method in ODataApiHandler, we need to update the tests.
Below are the changes made.

1. Make POST (BulkInsert) requests use ODataApiHandler instead of ODataIdResolver.
2. Update GetHandler method to using ODataPath as a parameter. Rewrite the logic to get the handlers and add appropriate extension methods.
3. Add ODataPathHelper class with appropriate helper methods.
4. Update namespaces from Microsoft.Test.E2E.AspNet.OData.BulkInsert to Microsoft.Test.E2E.AspNet.OData.BulkOperation since tests are for both BulkInsert and BulkUpdate.
5. Add tests to E2E.AspNetCore project. Previously they were only in E2E.AspNetCore3x project.

Checklist (Uncheck if it is not completed)

• Test cases added
• Build and test with one-click build and test script passed

Additional work necessary

If documentation update is needed, please add "Docs Needed" label to the issue and provide details about the required document change in the issue.

[ElizabethOkerio]

we need to add more tests here - with containment, typesegments

[habbes]

I didn't quite understand the changes in this PR or what problem it solves. Could you add a description and more context to the PR, and link related issues if any?

[habbes]

Why is this changed from internal to public?

[KenitoInc]

For use by the customers using the nuget package

[habbes]

Out of curiosity, Was there actual demand for these path extensions, or this is done in anticipation? (I know the ones in the core library were explicitly asked for)

[KenitoInc]

Done in anticipation.
Also we are using them in E2E tests

[gathogojr]

@KenitoInc E2E tests would hardly be a reason to make a method public. We use the friend library feature for that

[habbes]

In my opinion, we should keep them internal unless we have concrete use cases in mind where we know customers will need them for, or customers have explicitly asked for them. Making things public increases the maintenance overhead in my opinion. It makes internal improvements and refactoring difficult and changes to their signature almost impossible. But if you still think they should be public, I'm not opposed to that. I but I would suggest considering delaying making them public until they have been battle-tested by internal usage for a while.

[KenitoInc]

E2E tests mirror what the customer using the library would write the handler methods. That's why I still prefer keeping the methods public

[gathogojr]

The methods in ODataPathHelper and ODataPathExtensions classes need thorough tests covering all applicable scenarios including but not limited to those I highlighted in my review comments. For example, one can initialize ODataPath with an empty list and most of those methods don't handle such an edge case

[habbes]

In my opinion, we should keep them internal unless we have concrete use cases in mind where we know customers will need them for, or customers have explicitly asked for them. Making things public increases the maintenance overhead in my opinion. It makes internal improvements and refactoring difficult and changes to their signature almost impossible. But if you still think they should be public, I'm not opposed to that. I but I would suggest considering delaying making them public until they have been battle-tested by internal usage for a while.

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 934 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Extra Large
Size       : +530 -404
Percentile : 97.8%

Total files changed: 17

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +502 -374
.projitems : +4 -0
.csproj : +24 -30

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

• Fast and predictable releases to production:
  • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
    iterations.
  • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
• Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
  • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
  • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
• Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
  • Small portions can be assimilated better.
• Better engineering practices are exercised:
  • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
  • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

• Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
  • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
  • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
• Change your engineering behaviors
  • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
    • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
    • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

• One line was added: +1 -0
• One line was deleted: +0 -1
• One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
  interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
• Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
  of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

---

Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.