Fake for azqueue.QueueClient

[BernieWhite]

Feature Request

Currently testing code around the storage queue client (azqueue.QueueClient) is a pain.

A fake similar to other ARM clients would be helpful to make testing much easier.

[github-actions]

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

//cc: xgithubtriage

[github-actions]

🎯 Agentic Issue Triage

Summary: The author requests a fake implementation for azqueue.QueueClient (in sdk/storage/azqueue) to simplify unit testing, similar to fakes that exist for ARM clients.

📋 Issue Details

Module: github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/storage/azqueue
Affected API: azqueue.QueueClient
Scenarios:

• Writing unit tests against code that uses azqueue.QueueClient is difficult without a fake/mock implementation
• Other ARM clients have fakes available; azqueue does not

Root ask: Add a fake implementation for azqueue.QueueClient to enable easier unit testing without real Azure dependencies.

🔎 Debugging / Reproduction Notes

This is a feature request rather than a bug. No reproduction steps are needed.

Suggested investigation steps:

1. Check whether other storage clients (azblob, azfile) have fakes and use them as a reference pattern
2. Evaluate the feasibility of generating or hand-authoring a fake for azqueue.QueueClient
3. Review if the sdk/storage/azqueue module already has a fake/ subdirectory or if one needs to be created

🏷️ Label Confidence

• Category: Client — azqueue lives under sdk/storage/azqueue, which is a data-plane client module (not under sdk/resourcemanager/)
• Service: Storage — Azure Queue Storage is part of the Storage service family
• Confidence: High — the module path clearly identifies the service and category; confirmed by quality reference issues ContentMd5 contains invalid UTF-8 #19206 and Queue Storage not usable when connecting with SAS token #15701 which use the same Client + Storage pair for azqueue/azblob

👥 Owner Routing

• Matched CODEOWNERS entry: # ServiceLabel: %Storage (line ~130) — matched on the Storage label
• AzureSdkOwners: none listed for this entry
• ServiceOwners: @xgithubtriage
• Routing action: Added Service Attention and needs-team-attention labels; posted mention to ServiceOwners
• Scan notes: Scanned bottom-to-top; the first # ServiceLabel: %Storage entry encountered (line ~130) has only # ServiceOwners: xgithubtriage. A second `# ServiceLabel: %Storage` block (lines ~127–129) with `# AzureSdkOwners: `@jhendrixMSFT and # ServiceOwners: @tanyasethi-msft`` was not reached because first-match-wins semantics stopped the scan at the earlier (higher-numbered) entry.

Generated by Agentic Triage for #27396 · 36.5 AIC · ⌖ 8.1 AIC · ⊞ 9.2K · ◷