Fix DeepInsert issue with matching RelatedDescriptors to NestedItems.…

[uffelauesen]

Fixes issue #2781

Issues

This pull request fixes #2781

Description

2 new tests added showing the issue. The fix handles counting across different NestedItems on same nesting level.

Checklist (Uncheck if it is not completed)

• [ x] Test cases added
• [ x] 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.

[KenitoInc]

@uffelauesen
Look into the failing test

Microsoft.Data.WebClient.UnitTests.ClientRegressionTests.ShouldAcceptResponse204InAsync
Test method Microsoft.Data.WebClient.UnitTests.ClientRegressionTests.ShouldAcceptResponse204InAsync threw exception: 
Microsoft.OData.Client.DataServiceTransportException: System.Net.Http.HttpRequestException: An error occurred while sending the request. ---> System.Net.WebException: Unable to connect to the remote server ---> System.Net.Sockets.SocketException: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it 127.0.0.1:23570
   at System.Net.Sockets.Socket.InternalEndConnect(IAsyncResult asyncResult)
   at System.Net.Sockets.Socket.EndConnect(IAsyncResult asyncResult)
   at System.Net.ServicePoint.ConnectSocketInternal(Boolean connectFailure, Socket s4, Socket s6, Socket& socket, IPAddress& address, ConnectSocketState state, IAsyncResult asyncResult, Exception& exception)
   --- End of inner exception stack trace ---
   at System.Net.HttpWebRequest.EndGetResponse(IAsyncResult asyncResult)
   at System.Net.Http.HttpClientHandler.GetResponseCallback(IAsyncResult ar)
   --- End of inner exception stack trace --- ---> System.Net.WebException: System.Net.Http.HttpRequestException: An error occurred while sending the request. ---> System.Net.WebException: Unable to connect to the remote server ---> System.Net.Sockets.SocketException: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it 127.0.0.1:23570
   at System.Net.Sockets.Socket.InternalEndConnect(IAsyncResult asyncResult)
   at System.Net.Sockets.Socket.EndConnect(IAsyncResult asyncResult)
   at System.Net.ServicePoint.ConnectSocketInternal(Boolean connectFailure, Socket s4, Socket s6, Socket& socket, IPAddress& address, ConnectSocketState state, IAsyncResult asyncResult, Exception& exception)
   --- End of inner exception stack trace ---
   at System.Net.HttpWebRequest.EndGetResponse(IAsyncResult asyncResult)
   at System.Net.Http.HttpClientHandler.GetResponseCallback(IAsyncResult ar)
   --- End of inner exception stack trace ---

[uffelauesen]

@KenitoInc
Thanks for the heads up.
However, I can't see how any of my changes could lead to that test failing. The failing test looks like some dependent environment that fails, a timeout or some infrastructure issue.
I can see the Release pipeline is still executing, it has been so for > 1 day, is that normal?
/uffe

[uffelauesen]

@KenitoInc
The mentioned test seems to be failing in other builds as well, like here...
https://github.com/OData/odata.net/pull/2505/checks?check_run_id=8213298113
Again - I don't think it is related to any of the changes in this PR.
/uffe

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 227 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Large
Size       : +223 -4
Percentile : 62.7%

Total files changed: 2

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +223 -4

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.

[KenitoInc]

@uffelauesen Look into review comments

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 241 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Large
Size       : +237 -4
Percentile : 64.1%

Total files changed: 2

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +237 -4

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.

[KenitoInc]

@uffelauesen Thanks for this PR