Adding support for more types when outputting to JSON

[stefanedwards]

This pull request addresses #152.

It ensures that various numeric types (long, short, bytes, signed and unsigned) are outputted correctly and not as strings or cast to doubles and then written as exponentials.

The three commits do:

• Moved DictionaryDataItem and DataItemJsonConverter from Interfaces to Common, as they are implementations - not interfaces.
• Added unit testing and code coverage reporting to Cosmos.DataTransfer.Common, Cosmos.DataTransfer.CosmosExtension and Cosmos.DataTransfer.JsonExtension.
• Added unit testing to Cosmos.DataTransfer.CosmosExtension that can use an actual Cosmos DB connection, together with a github action that allows it to run a Cosmos DB emulator.

[markjbrown]

@bowencode this PR gets into much of the code you wrote in the core as well as unit tests. Can you review this?

[stefanedwards]

Re. @philnach's comment: I just extended the existing methods to handle more types. I am not sure what advantages the Convert class would bring to this case, as the next step (the Json writer WriteNumber) requires specific types. Den 21. februar 2025 19.40.54 CET, Phil Nachreiner ***@***.***> skrev:

…

@philnach commented on this pull request. > @@ -111,6 +136,60 @@ private static JsonEncodedText GetAsUnescaped(string text) return JsonEncodedText.Encode(text, JavaScriptEncoder.UnsafeRelaxedJsonEscaping); } + internal static bool TryGetLong(object? x, out long number) + { + if (x is long l) { Curious as to why not use the [Convert ](https://learn.microsoft.com/dotnet/api/system.convert?view=net-9.0) class? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #173 (review) You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Message ID: ***@***.***>

[philnach]

Re. @philnach's comment: I just extended the existing methods to handle more types. I am not sure what advantages the Convert class would bring to this case, as the next step (the Json writer WriteNumber) requires specific types. Den 21. februar 2025 19.40.54 CET, Phil Nachreiner @.> skrev:
…
@philnach commented on this pull request. > @@ -111,6 +136,60 @@ private static JsonEncodedText GetAsUnescaped(string text) return JsonEncodedText.Encode(text, JavaScriptEncoder.UnsafeRelaxedJsonEscaping); } + internal static bool TryGetLong(object? x, out long number) + { + if (x is long l) { Curious as to why not use the Convert class? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #173 (review) You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Message ID: @.>

The advantage of the Convert class is you wouldn't have to write methods to handle each of the conversions and instead could rely on calling the Convert method appropriate to the type. I see you were following the existing pattern, but if you can rely on the Convert class for the actual conversions it would reduce the number of lines of code.

[markjbrown]

@stefanedwards this fails the build test. Can you check on this?

[markjbrown]

I have no idea why but I cannot merge this thing. @philnach or @bowencode can one of you review/approve so I can merge this?