Azure-sdk-for-net: [FEATURE REQ] Public constructors on Operation types for testability

[riezebosch]

Library or service name.
Azure.ResourceManager.Storage

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

[Fact]
public async Task Solve()
{
    var operations = Substitute.For<StorageAccountsOperations>();
    operations
        .StartCreateAsync("rg", Arg.Any<string>(), Arg.Any<StorageAccountCreateParameters>())
        .Returns(new StorageAccountsCreateOperation(null, null, null, null)); // <-- [CS1729] 'StorageAccountsCreateOperation' does not contain a constructor that takes 4 arguments

    var storage = Substitute.For<StorageManagementClient>();
    storage.StorageAccounts.Returns(operations);

    var operation = await _storage.StorageAccounts.StartCreateAsync(_rg, $"sa{DateTime.Now.Ticks}",
        new StorageAccountCreateParameters(new Sku(SkuName.StandardLRS), Kind.Storage, _location));

    await operation.WaitForCompletionAsync();
}

Would be really happy to turn my integration tests into unit tests but that's not impossible while these constructor(s) are internal.

[jsquire]

Thank you for your feedback. Tagging and routing to the team member best able to assist.

[riezebosch]

The same applies for example on the ResourceGroupsOperations that is returned by ResourcesManagementClient.

public virtual async Task<ResourceGroupsDeleteOperation> StartDeleteAsync(string resourceGroupName, CancellationToken cancellationToken = default)

The method is virtual so I _can_ override it with a mock, but then the return type ResourceGroupsDeleteOperation only has an internal constructor so I'm not able instantiate it or create a derived type.

Would be great if the method would use a the base class or interface for its return type.

[jhested]

I think it's the same issue as described here https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-net/issues/15639.

It would also follow the guidelines described here https://azure.github.io/azure-sdk/dotnet_introduction.html#dotnet-mocking

[riezebosch]

Sure, but mine was first 😛 Thanks for the heads-up on the mocking guidelines, wouldn't have found it myself but still doesn't seem to be in place for the aforementioned operations.