Thanks for you contribution!
For this change in batch operations, we intentionally made it so that each agent is deleted and inserted on individually to reduce the impact on the production system. If batch operations must be used, please ensure the transactional integrity of the database operations.

This PR is duplicate with previous one, can I close 922 and keep this one?

This PR is duplicate with previous one, can I close #922 and keep this one?

ok

@zfchai Please help resolve the conflict.

Auto Review Result:

Code Review Summary

Change Overview: The changes mainly involved renaming date properties from CreatedDateTime and UpdatedDateTime to CreatedTime and UpdatedTime respectively throughout the entity classes and service methods. Additionally, the changes introduced asynchronous methods for bulk operations on agents and tasks, improving the system's scalability and performance in operations like bulk insertions and deletions.

Identified Issues

Issue 1: Naming Consistency [Code Clarity]

• Description: The renaming of CreatedDateTime and UpdatedDateTime to CreatedTime and UpdatedTime improves consistency with naming conventions which prefer shorter and precise names. However, there might be other parts of the codebase where DateTime is still being used in names causing inconsistency.
• Suggestion: Ensure that all parts of the codebase use consistent naming conventions. Check for any DateTime references and update them uniformly.

Issue 2: Error Handling [Fault Tolerance]

• Description: There are try-catch blocks for database operations which log errors but use very generic exception messages.
• Suggestion: Include more specific error handling, possibly with custom exception classes or more detailed log messages to help diagnose specific issues encountered during database operations.
• Example:

  catch (MongoBulkWriteException<AgentDocument> ex) {
      _logger.LogError($"Error inserting: {ex.Message}");
  }

Issue 3: Unnecessary Delays [Performance]

• Description: The code introduces Task.Delay calls in asynchronous methods which might be an attempt to throttle operations but could lead to inefficiencies.
• Suggestion: Analyze the need for these delays. If throttling is necessary, consider using more efficient methods such as rate limiting.

Overall Evaluation

The code changes improve naming consistency and add asynchronous processing capability, enhancing the overall scalability. However, further improvements can be made in terms of consistency checks across the project and fine-tuning performance aspects related to asynchronous task handling. Ensuring uniform naming and careful performance considerations will provide a cleaner, more efficient codebase.