AzureStorage auto create blob containers

[RussKie]

Resolves #5167

Description

Checklist

• Is this feature complete?
  • Yes. Ready to ship.
  • No. Follow-up changes expected.
• Are you including unit tests for the changes and scenario tests if relevant?
  • Yes
  • No
• Did you add public API?
  • Yes
    • If yes, did you have an API Review for it?
      • Yes
      • No
    • Did you add <remarks /> and <code /> elements on your triple slash comments?
      • Yes
      • No
  • No
• Does the change make any security assumptions or guarantees?
  • Yes
    • If yes, have you done a threat model and had a security review?
      • Yes
      • No
  • No
• Does the change require an update in our Aspire docs?
  • Yes
    • Link to aspire-docs issue (consider using one of the following templates):
      • New (or update) doc-idea template
      • New breaking-change template
      • New diagnostic template
  • No

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR introduces functionality to automatically create blob containers in Azure Storage and includes relevant updates to test coverage, resource configuration, and provisioning logic. Key changes include:

• Adding tests to verify Bicep generation and functional behavior of blob container creation on an Azure Storage emulator.
• Extending resource and extensions classes (AzureStorageResource, AzureBlobStorageResource, and AzureBlobStorageContainerResource) with new APIs for blob container handling and provisioning.
• Updating the end-to-end playground to reference and wait for the new blob container resource.

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
tests/Aspire.Hosting.Azure.Tests/AzureStorageExtensionsTests.cs	Added a test verifying Bicep manifest generation for blob container-related resources.
tests/Aspire.Hosting.Azure.Tests/AzureStorageEmulatorFunctionalTests.cs	Introduced a new functional test to verify blob container creation and blob upload behavior on an emulator.
src/Aspire.Hosting.Azure.Storage/AzureStorageResource.cs	Added a Blobs property for aggregating blob resources and adjusted constant declarations.
src/Aspire.Hosting.Azure.Storage/AzureStorageExtensions.cs	Added logic to integrate blob containers into provisioning and new methods for adding and configuring blob container resources.
src/Aspire.Hosting.Azure.Storage/AzureStorageEmulatorConnectionString.cs	Adjusted connection string formatting by removing a trailing semicolon.
src/Aspire.Hosting.Azure.Storage/AzureBlobStorageResource.cs	Updated connection string composition and added a method for converting to a provisioning entity; note minor comment typo.
src/Aspire.Hosting.Azure.Storage/AzureBlobStorageContainerResource.cs	Added a new resource class for Azure Blob Storage container with associated provisioning conversion.
playground/AzureStorageEndToEnd/...	Updated end-to-end projects to reference and wait for blob container resources accordingly.

Files not reviewed (1)

• tests/Aspire.Hosting.Azure.Tests/AzureStorageExtensionsTests.ResourceNamesBicepValid.verified.bicep: Language not supported

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)

src/Aspire.Hosting.Azure.Storage/AzureStorageEmulatorConnectionString.cs:15

• Removing the trailing semicolon from the connection string may affect how connection properties are parsed. Please verify that the new format is compatible with downstream consumers expecting a semicolon delimiter.

builder.Append("${key}=http://{endpoint.Property(EndpointProperty.IPV4Host)}:{endpoint.Property(EndpointProperty.Port)}/devstoreaccount1")

src/Aspire.Hosting.Azure.Storage/AzureBlobStorageResource.cs:68

• There is a typo in the comment: 'on;y' should be 'only'.

// We don't inject the queue resource here since we on;y want it to

[davidfowl]

Are you doing the client integration side of this as well?

[RussKie]

For the most part this changeset copies the patterns implemented for AzureServiceBus.

I tested it locally in the emulator and deploying to Azure (configuring the Azure subscription details in secrets.json)

Emulator

Azure

var builder = DistributedApplication.CreateBuilder(args);

var storage = builder.AddAzureStorage("storage");
var blobs = storage.AddBlobs("blobs");
var blobContainer = blobs.AddBlobContainer("mycontainer");

var queues = storage.AddQueues("queues");

builder.AddProject<Projects.AzureStorageEndToEnd_ApiService>("api")
       .WithExternalHttpEndpoints()
       .WithReference(blobs).WaitFor(blobs)
       .WithReference(blobContainer).WaitFor(blobContainer)
       .WithReference(queues).WaitFor(queues);

[RussKie]

Building new API and experimenting is horribly difficult because of these (and many more) "warnings as errors".
I'll revert this when I get to the finish line.

[RussKie]

Opps, I forgot to rollback this. I'll fix it in a follow up.

[davidfowl]

Did you revert this?

[RussKie]

#9138

[RussKie]

Moved this verbatim from AspireBlobStorageExtensions.cs

[RussKie]

There's AzureBlobStorageHealthCheck for BlobServiceClient (comes from https://www.nuget.org/packages/AspNetCore.HealthChecks.Azure.Storage.Blobs). But there are no healthchecks for the containers.

Given that we're creating a blob container, I think checking that the container exists is sufficient.

[RussKie]

@eerhardt @sebastienros I added tests but I'm really unsure if or what more tests are needed.

Implementation-wise, I think, this is ready.

[eerhardt]

(nit) if we are going to break these out into their own files, do they need to be nested classes? Why not just make them internal and not nested?

[RussKie]

There are several reasons why I've done this. This style is present in our guidelines (https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/coding-guidelines/coding-style.md#example-file); and it's a common practice in the other repos I've been involved with. IMO, it improves the ability to navigate the codebase.

I can put all of these in the same file, if you insist.
But if these types are not nested, then the visibility needs to be increased which, essentially, will break the encapsulation (making the private implementation no longer private). It would also make the implementation inconsistent with the rest.

[RussKie]

@eerhardt please let me know if there are any tweaks you want to make it and I'll action those as a follow up.