Enable Durable Subscriptions

[romanett]

Proposed changes

• [Server] Durable Subscriptions ([Server] Durable Subscriptions #2683)
  With this change the server library allows user to provide own durable Notification & Event Queues to make the server support durable subscriptions.

As an example the reference Server provides custom queues and enables durable subscriptions with a limited lifetime using in memory queues.

• Implement a system test for DurableSubscriptions (Implement a system test for DurableSubscriptions #2839)
• Client Side
  Co-authored-by: ALTERNATE-DEV\Archie [email protected]

Types of changes

• Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Enhancement (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Test enhancement (non-breaking change to increase test coverage)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected, requires version increase of Nuget packages)
• Documentation Update (if none of the other choices apply)

Checklist

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING doc.
• I have signed the CLA.
• I ran tests locally with my changes, all passed.
• I fixed all failing tests in the CI pipelines.
• I fixed all introduced issues with CodeQL and LGTM.
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works and increased code coverage.
• I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate).
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules.

Further comments

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 85.13761% with 81 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 56.53%. Comparing base (cf82847) to head (00af40f).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...Server/Subscription/MonitoredItem/MonitoredItem.cs	78.04%	14 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
.../Opc.Ua.Server/NodeManager/SamplingGroupManager.cs	6.66%	14 Missing ⚠️
.../Opc.Ua.Server/Subscription/SubscriptionManager.cs	65.71%	4 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
...braries/Opc.Ua.Server/Subscription/Subscription.cs	76.47%	4 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
...nitoredItem/QueueHandler/DataChangeQueueHandler.cs	94.62%	1 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
Libraries/Opc.Ua.Client/Session/SessionAsync.cs	20.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
...braries/Opc.Ua.Client/Subscription/Subscription.cs	90.00%	3 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...onitoredItem/Queue/DataChangeMonitoredItemQueue.cs	95.06%	2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...ion/MonitoredItem/Queue/EventMonitoredItemQueue.cs	90.90%	1 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...ies/Opc.Ua.Server/Diagnostics/CustomNodeManager.cs	90.47%	2 Missing ⚠️
... and 4 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2978      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   55.50%   56.53%   +1.02%     
==========================================
  Files         352      356       +4     
  Lines       67851    68050     +199     
  Branches    13904    13936      +32     
==========================================
+ Hits        37664    38469     +805     
+ Misses      26072    25425     -647     
- Partials     4115     4156      +41     

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

[mrsuciu]

Maybe a LinkedList will handle removal from beginning and the end with the same complexity ?

[romanett]

I think this case comes not often enough to make this worthwile, benchmarking woudl be necessary:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5983059/why-is-a-linkedlist-generally-slower-than-a-list

[mrsuciu]

See comments