feat(gitprovider): add Azure DevOps support and update provider confi…

[diegocaspi]

…gurations

• Introduced Azure DevOps as a supported Git provider in the application.
• Updated configuration schemas to include 'azure' in the list of supported providers.
• Added Azure-specific provider implementation with functionality for creating and managing pull requests.
• Included tests for Azure repository URL parsing.

This enhancement allows users to interact with Azure DevOps repositories alongside existing GitHub and GitLab support.

Closes #3120

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for docs-kargo-io ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	0a0cba8
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/docs-kargo-io/deploys/67633595caee5e000819a966
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-3128.docs.kargo.io
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[krancour]

Something looks off here. This looks as if it should be a direct dependency. You may need to run go mod tidy?

[diegocaspi]

solved. The only weird thing is that it also removed github.com/xanzy/go-gitlab

[krancour]

Ya... I see and that is strange. I'll take a look.

[krancour]

Looks like main stopped using github.com/xanzy/go-gitlab just a few days ago and go mod tidy should have been run at that time and seems it wasn't.

#3146

So when you ran it, it fixed this.

All is well.

[krancour]

Whoa... you may want to roll back to ccc05b5 and rebase on main instead of merging main into your branch.

It's tough to zero in on the changes here.

[krancour]

This looks pretty good overall. I don't see any major problems. Once this is all set, I'll give it another once over.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 15.43624% with 126 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 51.07%. Comparing base (b75ef48) to head (0a0cba8).
Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
internal/gitprovider/azure/azure.go	15.43%	125 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3128      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   51.27%   51.07%   -0.21%     
==========================================
  Files         285      286       +1     
  Lines       25706    25855     +149     
==========================================
+ Hits        13182    13205      +23     
- Misses      11824    11949     +125     
- Partials      700      701       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[diegocaspi]

I feel like rebasing to sign off that particular commit is not going to be easy, there are conflicts in a lot of steps of the rebase. Tomorrow I'll do it carefully :)

[krancour]

@diegocaspi don't bother... you're ok now. It's no longer showing every diff from the 20 odd commits that you merged into your branch from main. All good.

[krancour]

@diegocaspi code looks solid. I'd normally test drive this as well, but I don't have a repo in ADO readily available to me at the moment. I assume you've see this work end-to-end?

[diegocaspi]

yes, I ran an end-to-end test with both git-open-pr and git-wait-for-pr steps and it was working as expected. Haven't tested with the latest changes yet (pr comments fixes), I'll do it in some hours :)

[krancour]

Much appreciated @diegocaspi!

[diegocaspi]

shoud I write some more unit-tests? I see that the code coverage is under the threshold

[krancour]

I see that the code coverage is under the threshold

That's mainly for informational purposes. We don't require it to pass.

Normally, I would look for more thorough test coverage, but unit testing this can't easily be done without mocking out several ADO API endpoints. A mistake in the mocked out endpoints can result in tests that pass, but shouldn't.

This is probably better suited to integration tests, but we'd either need a dedicated ADO repo perpetually available to test against or a way to provision one just-in-time and clean up afterwards. It's something we need to tackle eventually, but we've got to do it for GitHub, GitLab, and a few other external systems as well. I don't want this PR held up while work that out.

[fykaa]

@diegocaspi you may need to sign your commits for this PR

[krancour]

you may need to sign your commits for this PR

@fykaa he did. DCO failed because some unsigned commits that were already in main got merged into his branch.

We can overlook the DCO check for such a case.

[diegocaspi]

just tested and everything looks fine

[krancour]

No outstanding issues. LGTM.

Thanks @diegocaspi!