Work on this feature has started. Will update here as this moves into preview availability.
Thank you for your suggestion and votes.
Change feed is not good enough for the use case of audit logging. Every single update to a document has to be tracked on it's own, not as an aggregate of changes since last check of the change log.
Azure Cosmos DB now provides the ability to access the change feed (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/change-feed). A common pattern to implement eventing patterns is
1. Store every version/change as a separate item
2. Read the change feed to merge/consolidate changes and trigger appropriate actions downstream.
You can also expire old versions using TTL: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/time-to-live
Hoping this is revisited. We have strict data auditing requirements (21 CFR Part 11) and have to track every single change in an audit log. We can't use change feed processing if we can't be sure that all individual changes are reflected.
"Only the most recent change for a given item is included in the change log. Intermediate changes may not be available."
Doesn't this make change feed useless for true versioning? One or more changes may not appear in the change log as distinct versions, no?
For any questions, please reach out to us at AskCosmosDB@microsoft.com
Work for this feature is now planned. Will update here when work on this feature starts and when it becomes generally available.
This is currently not our our roadmap. Will mark this as unplanned and leave this open as we will revisit this in future planning cycles.
Thank you for your suggestion.
This is currently not on our roadmap. However, we will continue to review this item in the future as we prioritize future releases.
Thank you for your suggestion and for the comments.
For applications that require cross document join, please consider the Gremlin API: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/create-graph-dotnet, which has primitives for joins, traversals, and other graph operations.
We are evaluating expanding the SQL grammar to support graph functionality, which will provide the ability to perform cross-document JOINs. Please upvote this item to help us prioritize this work.
This request ranks 3rd in the top 5 requested features, yet is the only one of the five in the unplanned state. Can we get traction on this one?
Thank you for your suggestion. This is not currently on our road map.
As suggested by others, customers are implementing this pattern using the same container with a partition key per tenant or a synthetic key with the tenant id and one or more other properties.
Will mark this as unplanned and leave open and will revisit this in future planning cycles.
Thank you for your suggestion and votes.
We have reviewed this and have elected to not include this on our road map for the time being. We may revisit this in the future so will leave as unplanned rather than declined or closed.
Thanks for your suggestion and comments.
"We are working to deliver many more event sources and destinations later this year, including Azure Active Directory, API Management, IoT Hub, Service Bus, Azure Data Lake Store, Azure Cosmos DB, Azure Data Factory, and Storage Queues." -- Corey Sanders, August 16, 2017
So this changed?
It's very difficult to use Cosmos DB in a validadated (regulated) system since Change Feed doesn't let us ensure that every data change can be tracked for auditing needs. At least with the Event Hub, if the provider is set up to publish every changed element in a document, we could satisfy compliance issues.
We definitely recognize the popularity of this feature, and we discuss it constantly during the planning phases. However there are certain technical limitations in the system that add a large amount of development cost. Because of the cost and the fact that there is a workaround available, other features get prioritized over this one.
That being said, please keep voting for it. The popularity of the feature does help bring it up and makes us reconsider every time.
Apologies for the delay.
We’re doing some research both on the specifics of this ask as well as what it would take to support this.
Is the ask here to do the same thing that regular Azure AD does (see: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/enterprisemobility/2014/12/18/azure-active-directory-now-with-group-claims-and-application-roles/) or is are there different requirements around this for Azure AD B2C?