Initial CosmosDB crate

[analogrelay]

This PR creates a new crate for the Azure Cosmos DB client in the track2 branch. It includes only a single operation, the Get Database operation which returns the "properties" of a database, primarily its ID and other "system" properties (like _etag, _self, _rid, and _ts).

There's a single sample, cosmosdb_connect (following the convention for prefixing examples with the service name). It can be run with the following command in the root of the repo (hence why the service name prefix is useful, example names are a "global" scope for the repo):

$ az login
... do your Azure Login ...
$ cargo run --example cosmosdb_connect -- https://someaccount.documents.azure.com:443/ SomeDB
   Compiling azure_data_cosmos v0.19.0 (/home/ashleyst/code/Azure/azure-sdk-for-rust/sdk/cosmosdb/azure_data_cosmos)
    Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 3.99s
     Running `target/debug/examples/cosmosdb_connect 'https://ashleyst-e2e-sql3.documents.azure.com:443/' SampleDB`
DatabaseProperties { id: "SomeDB", system_properties: SystemProperties { etag: Some(Etag("\"0000fe01-0000-4d00-0000-66b64a2d0000\"")), self_link: Some("dbs/aaaMAA==/"), resource_id: Some("aaaMAA=="), last_modified: Some(CosmosTimestamp(1723222573)) } }

This is a draft PR, because there are some things I intend to do before this is fully ready for review. However, there are some core elements I want to call out and get initial feedback on. I've made inline comments to point those out.

TODO

These are the things I already intend to do, so if you notice they're missing, hang tight for the next iteration ;).

• Improve doc comments. I want to try and keep on top of those, so I need to add a full set of doc comments to CosmosClient and friends.
• Rebase on feature/track2 when Derive Macro for typespec_client_core::http::Model #1772 is merged, and replace use of json_model! with the derive macro.

[Pilchie]

Looking forward to taking a look at this, but it will probably be a couple of days. Don't block on my review please.

[Pilchie]

Not an expert, but LGTM

[analogrelay]

Marking this ready for final review. There are a few outstanding things I could use some assistance with:

• I created a team to represent the Cosmos DB SDK team, @Azure/azure-cosmos-rust-sdk, but it needs to have write access to this repo to be a CODEOWNER. The docs indicate that's done by adding it as a member of azure-sdk-write but I don't have any access to do that (@heaths or @RickWinter , do you?). We can also go back to individual mentions if using a team is problematic, but it would be best if we can add/remove reviewers without having to edit the CODEOWNERS file each time.

• CSpell is failing when analyzing the CODEOWNERS file because it's finding all the usernames. For now, I excluded the file entirely (based on precedent in azure-sdk-for-python) since CODEOWNERS is likely to contain spelling errors (due to usernames) and has fairly minimal text that needs spell checking.

[heaths]

Up to @kurtzeborn and @weshaggard but I don't think service teams should be language-specific e.g., @Azure/azure-cosmos-rust-sdk. Lots of management overhead in many cases, I imagine, unless there are dedicated language resources within each partner team.

[heaths]

Overall, I think this looks great! Nice job! There are a few open questions, and a few minor changes I listed so far like using underscores for feature names as well. I'd love to hear feedback on that as well, but I added that to guidelines yesterday to use underscores uniformly. Personally, I hate having to guess at whether to use - or _ and get errors 50% of the time. That's USB-A. I'm shooting for USB-C. 😉