`IAuthenticationService.ImplementationType` returns `Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.AuthenticationServiceImpl` instead

[WeiweiCaiAcpt]

When we run unittest Ocelot by command dotnet vstest with the latest version dotnet-sdk-10.0.100-preview.2.25125.6, it failed with error: The provided expression should be of type Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.AuthenticationService but was Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.AuthenticationServiceImpl.

After investigating, we found that this test failed due to the implementation was refactored in dotnet/aspnetcore#59557 to return a more derived type.

More detailed information about this issue, please refer to this comment:
dotnet/aspnetcore#60645 (comment)

[raman-m]

I do not understand your request to the Ocelot team.
All our builds for the develop branch are successful, including the step to run unit tests. So, the Develop Run #3 is green.

Please send a short email message at dotnet044@gmail.com so we can continue the discussion.

[martincostello]

The issue is saying that if the tests are run having upgraded the code to .NET 10, then the test referenced in the issue will fail.

If you changed the test as described, then you'll be in a good state for an upgrade after .NET 10 ships in November.

[raman-m]

@martincostello Hello, Martin!

The issue is saying that if the tests are run having upgraded the code to .NET 10, then...

However, Ocelot is currently completing the upgrade to .NET 9 only.

If you changed the test as described, then you'll be in a good state for an upgrade after .NET 10 ships in November.

Understood. Thank you. We will keep this in mind.
Since .NET 10 is scheduled for release in November this year, I will postpone resolving this issue until then.
However, if someone submits a PR to resolve this, we will accept it and keep it in a separate release branch.
In any case, I will mark this issue with a special label.

[martincostello]

The same test code works in .NET 9 and .NET 10, so you could change it now and get it out of the way and forget about it. The one line change is already in the linked comment - I would have submitted a PR, but I don't know which of the two suggestions you want.