Added Hierarchical Partition Key Support

[v1k1]

Packages impacted by this PR

@azure/cosmos

Issues associated with this PR

#23416

Describe the problem that is addressed by this PR

Added Hierarchical Partition Key Support

1. Refactored Definition of PartitionKey.

• Old definition - type PartitionKey = PartitionKeyDefinition | string | number | unknown;
• New definition - type PartitionKey = PrimitivePartitionKeyValue | PrimitivePartitionKeyValue[];
• The main change here is
  a) Separating out PartitionKeyDefinition [May seem like a breaking change. But the actual functions which need PartitionKeyDefinition were always taking PartitionKeyDefinition as an input i.e. ContainerDefinition, the existing definition seems confusing.]
  b) Removal of unknown from definition (along with adding boolean). Defining it as PartitionKeyDefinition | string | number | unknown was effectively equivalent to unknown, since or of anything with unknown is unknown. Which essentially means we had no structure upon PartitionKey. This seems like a huge bug.

3. Introduced PartitionKeyInternal to create a boundary beyond with PartitionKey would be sanitized. The idea is to use ClientContext as that boundary.
4. Changed bulk/batch api Operation/OperationInput DTOs partitionKey field to PartitionKey type.
5. Clearly defined order for choosing partitionKey for an operation during bulk api. Now if the user has provided partitionKey in OperationInput it will be used, if not it will be derived from resource body (for create and upsert).
6. Added logic for MultiHash calculation.
7. Changed FeedOption.partitionKey filed to PartitionKey type.

[[Bugs fixes]]

1. In bulk api, The case when partition key path has escaped characters was not handled. In batch.ts -> deepFind() method.
2. In bulk/batch api Operation/OperationInput DTOs were inconsistent in supporting type of partition key values.

What are the possible designs available to address the problem? If there are more than one possible design, why was the one in this PR chosen?

Are there test cases added in this PR? (If not, why?)

Yes

Provide a list of related PRs (if any)

Command used to generate this PR:**(Applicable only to SDK release request PRs)

Checklists

• Added impacted package name to the issue description
• Does this PR needs any fixes in the SDK Generator?** (If so, create an Issue in the Autorest/typescript repository and link it here)
• Added a changelog (if necessary)

[azure-sdk]

API change check

APIView has identified API level changes in this PR and created following API reviews.

azure-cosmos

[abkolant-MSFT]

LGTM