Samples for Mocking Client Types (EventHubProducerClient) #7382

[andreyshihov]

All SDK Contribution checklist:

This checklist is used to make sure that common guidelines for a pull request are followed.

• Please open PR in Draft mode if it is:
  • Work in progress or not intended to be merged.
  • Encountering multiple pipeline failures and working on fixes.
• If an SDK is being regenerated based on a new swagger spec, a link to the pull request containing these swagger spec changes has been included above.
• I have read the contribution guidelines.
• The pull request does not introduce breaking changes.

General Guidelines and Best Practices

• Title of the pull request is clear and informative.
• There are a small number of commits, each of which have an informative message. This means that previously merged commits do not appear in the history of the PR. For more information on cleaning up the commits in your PR, see this page.

Testing Guidelines

• Pull request includes test coverage for the included changes.

SDK Generation Guidelines

• The generate.cmd file for the SDK has been updated with the version of AutoRest, as well as the commitid of your swagger spec or link to the swagger spec, used to generate the code. (Track 2 only)
• The *.csproj and AssemblyInfo.cs files have been updated with the new version of the SDK. Please double check nuget.org current release version.

Additional management plane SDK specific contribution checklist:

Note: Only applies to Microsoft.Azure.Management.[RP] or Azure.ResourceManager.[RP]

• Include updated management metadata.
• Update AzureRP.props to add/remove version info to maintain up to date API versions.

Management plane SDK Troubleshooting

• If this is very first SDK for a services and you are adding new service folders directly under /SDK, please add new service label and/or contact assigned reviewer.

• If the check fails at the Verify Code Generation step, please ensure:

  • Do not modify any code in generated folders.
  • Do not selectively include/remove generated files in the PR.
  • Do use generate.ps1/cmd to generate this PR instead of calling autorest directly.
    Please pay attention to the @microsoft.csharp version output after running generate.ps1. If it is lower than current released version (2.3.82), please run it again as it should pull down the latest version.

  Note: We have recently updated the PSH module called by generate.ps1 to emit additional data. This would help reduce/eliminate the Code Verification check error. Please run following command:

    `dotnet msbuild eng/mgmt.proj /t:Util /p:UtilityName=InstallPsModules`
  

Old outstanding PR cleanup

Please note:
If PRs (including draft) has been out for more than 60 days and there are no responses from our query or followups, they will be closed to maintain a concise list for our reviewers.

[ghost]

Thank you for your contribution @andreyshihov! We will review the pull request and get back to you soon.

[andreyshihov]

Now I understand "nuts and bolts" of the event hub + SDK a bit better (but not the antipatterns), and have been able to make more interesting example for the EventDataBatch. Please have a look. What do you think?

I'm now working another sample for producer to demonstrate EventHubsModelFactory.PartitionPublishingProperties use. It might me too small for a separate sample. Wouldn't be too much to try combining both example in one example that I have updated this morning?

[andreyshihov]

Added an example demonstrating use of the EventHubsModelFactory.PartitionPublishingProperties. I have played around with OwnerLevel (exclusive reader) property of the partition.

[andreyshihov]

@jsquire, please don't review it yet. I'm working on some improvements.

[andreyshihov]

@jsquire, I think I have made something worth reviewing now. Please have a look.

[andreyshihov]

Hi @jsquire,

Unfortunately, I have less and less time available for my contribution efforts for this tasks. Shame, I really enjoy it and I hope to be able to continue later. Thank you very much for your valuable feedback.

There are two pull requests I'm currently working on. This one; and Samples for Mocking Client Types (EventProcessor) one. I will have to abandon one of them due to the lack of time.

I think the other one is closer to the completion. It requires some polishing of the test case and describing everything in markdown file.

The work in this PR, IMO, is too far from the completion, and I'd say it's a good candidate to be abandoned.

Another scenario is that none of them are good enough and worth continue spending additional time.

What do you think?

[jsquire]

Hi @andreyshihov. First.... a giant thank you for all of your work and contributions; I've lost count for how many times I've linked the logging sample that you worked on over the last two weeks. It has been a pleasure collaborating with you, and I'd love to have the opportunity again should you wish to do so.

I think that you've managed to work out a good general approach and direction for these. Personally, I find value in leaving the PRs open for inspiration and reference; I'm also under a bit of time pressure this month, but am hopeful that I can carve out a few days to loop back and use your PRs to finish these samples before we get into the holidays this year.

That, of course, assumes that you don't mind us leaving this open, picking up your code and using it as the basis for work moving forward. I'd appreciate your thoughts on that.

[andreyshihov]

@jsquire, thank you for your kind words! Thinking that these PRs might explicitly or implicitly help community to continue works on these tasks makes me feel very happy! Sorry that I couldn't finish them off myself.

Hope to get back in the game later.

Ciao!

[ghost]

Hi @andreyshihov. Thank you, for your interest in helping to improve the Azure SDK experience and for your contribution. We've noticed that there hasn't been recent engagement on this pull request. If this is still an active work stream, please let us know by pushing some changes or leaving a comment. Otherwise, we'll close this out in 7 days.

[jsquire]

Keeping open; I'd like to use this in the future as the basis of samples.

[ghost]

Hi @andreyshihov. Thank you, for your interest in helping to improve the Azure SDK experience and for your contribution. We've noticed that there hasn't been recent engagement on this pull request. If this is still an active work stream, please let us know by pushing some changes or leaving a comment. Otherwise, we'll close this out in 7 days.

[jsquire]

Keeping open; I'd like to use this in the future as the basis of samples.

[ghost]

Hi @andreyshihov. Thank you for your interest in helping to improve the Azure SDK experience and for your contribution. We've noticed that there hasn't been recent engagement on this pull request. If this is still an active work stream, please let us know by pushing some changes or leaving a comment. Otherwise, we'll close this out in 7 days.

[jsquire]

Keeping open; I'd like to use this in the future as the basis of samples.

[ghost]

Hi @andreyshihov. Thank you for your interest in helping to improve the Azure SDK experience and for your contribution. We've noticed that there hasn't been recent engagement on this pull request. If this is still an active work stream, please let us know by pushing some changes or leaving a comment. Otherwise, we'll close this out in 7 days.

[jsquire]

I've linked this into the samples issue so that we can find it and use it as a starting point/reference in the future. Closing out for now.