Test coverage for auth configuration

[thomas11]

This is a core part of the provider that lacked coverage. Also includes the new #3281.

[github-actions]

Does the PR have any schema changes?

Looking good! No breaking changes found.
No new resources/functions.

[mikhailshilkov]

It looks like some of the tests are failing

[thomas11]

It looks like some of the tests are failing

Hmm, it's because we're not logged in to Azure for the unit tests. As it should be, really. But without logging in, we can't test CLI functionality.

Adding the azure-login bit to build-test.yml would be trivial, but it's a bit yucky in terms of clean unit tests. Hmm... thoughts, anyone (@danielrbradley)?

[danielrbradley]

It blurs the lines a little between unit tests and integration tests a little but think that's probably a reasonable change for now to get it into CI. Perhaps it should be disabled by default by a flag or something so that locally just the unit tests (without external dependencies) are run by default.

[mikhailshilkov]

Would it be hard to refactor the method to allow mocking of the Azure CLI dependency to turn these tests into pure unit tests of our code?

[thomas11]

Would it be hard to refactor the method to allow mocking of the Azure CLI dependency to turn these tests into pure unit tests of our code?

The call out to az is unfortunately not in our code but in a dependency, and it's in the same method that handles the other auth mechanisms as well.

[mikhailshilkov]

The call out to az is unfortunately not in our code but in a dependency, and it's in the same method that handles the other auth mechanisms as well.

Could we mock it out? Define an interface, pass the real implementation in the provider, pass a stub in the test, and only test our code (like the error logic that you added)?

[thomas11]

The call out to az is unfortunately not in our code but in a dependency, and it's in the same method that handles the other auth mechanisms as well.

Could we mock it out? Define an interface, pass the real implementation in the provider, pass a stub in the test, and only test our code (like the error logic that you added)?

I don't see mocking as a good fit here. Like I said, most of the logic is in the dependency and the az tool, so if you mock it, the test just tests the mock. And that "public" != "usgovernment", which we already know. I'm in camp "mocking is overused" anyway.

Also, this whole issue is an aside I picked up from triage and I'm not planning to spend time for larger refactorings on it.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 55.35%. Comparing base (0d8227f) to head (4a1870c).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #3285   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   55.35%   55.35%           
=======================================
  Files          66       66           
  Lines        9934     9934           
=======================================
  Hits         5499     5499           
  Misses       4001     4001           
  Partials      434      434           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.