Remove the promptflow-azure dependency

[nick863]

Description

Remove the promptflow-azure dependency from the promptflow-evals. We mostly use it to authenticate to azure, in tests, the runs are now obtained by using the RunHistory.

All Promptflow Contribution checklist:

• The pull request does not introduce [breaking changes].
• CHANGELOG is updated for new features, bug fixes or other significant changes.
• I have read the contribution guidelines.
• Create an issue and link to the pull request to get dedicated review from promptflow team. Learn more: suggested workflow.

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.

[github-actions]

promptflow-evals test result

   12 files  +  3     12 suites  +3   17m 36s ⏱️ - 1h 50m 57s
   89 tests + 37     89 ✅ + 42  0 💤  -  5  0 ❌ ±0 
1 068 runs  +600  1 068 ✅ +645  0 💤  - 45  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 901ce3b. ± Comparison against base commit 08cc0d4.

This pull request removes 52 and adds 89 tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both.

tests.evals.e2etests.test_adv_simulator.TestAdvSimulator ‑ test_adv_conversation_sim_responds_with_responses
tests.evals.e2etests.test_adv_simulator.TestAdvSimulator ‑ test_adv_qa_sim_responds_with_one_response
tests.evals.e2etests.test_adv_simulator.TestAdvSimulator ‑ test_adv_sim_init_with_prod_url
tests.evals.e2etests.test_adv_simulator.TestAdvSimulator ‑ test_adv_summarization_jailbreak_sim_responds_with_responses
tests.evals.e2etests.test_adv_simulator.TestAdvSimulator ‑ test_adv_summarization_sim_responds_with_responses
tests.evals.e2etests.test_adv_simulator.TestAdvSimulator ‑ test_incorrect_scenario_raises_error
tests.evals.e2etests.test_builtin_evaluators.TestBuiltInEvaluators ‑ test_composite_evaluator_chat[False-True]
tests.evals.e2etests.test_builtin_evaluators.TestBuiltInEvaluators ‑ test_composite_evaluator_chat[True-True]
tests.evals.e2etests.test_builtin_evaluators.TestBuiltInEvaluators ‑ test_composite_evaluator_content_safety
tests.evals.e2etests.test_builtin_evaluators.TestBuiltInEvaluators ‑ test_composite_evaluator_content_safety_chat[False-False]
…

tests.evals.unittests.test_batch_run_context.TestBatchRunContext ‑ test_with_codeclient
tests.evals.unittests.test_batch_run_context.TestBatchRunContext ‑ test_with_pfclient
tests.evals.unittests.test_built_in_evaluator.TestBuiltInEvaluators ‑ test_fluency_evaluator
tests.evals.unittests.test_built_in_evaluator.TestBuiltInEvaluators ‑ test_fluency_evaluator_empty_string
tests.evals.unittests.test_built_in_evaluator.TestBuiltInEvaluators ‑ test_fluency_evaluator_non_string_inputs
tests.evals.unittests.test_chat_evaluator.TestChatEvaluator ‑ test_conversation_validation_invalid_citations
tests.evals.unittests.test_chat_evaluator.TestChatEvaluator ‑ test_conversation_validation_missing_role
tests.evals.unittests.test_chat_evaluator.TestChatEvaluator ‑ test_conversation_validation_normal
tests.evals.unittests.test_chat_evaluator.TestChatEvaluator ‑ test_conversation_validation_question_answer_not_paired
tests.evals.unittests.test_chat_evaluator.TestChatEvaluator ‑ test_per_turn_results_aggregation
…

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[singankit]

Do we need this if customer will see error message that tells them to install pf-azure ?

[singankit]

We are not expecting it to have more than one file right ?

[singankit]

All this logic exist in pf-azure. Would it be beneficial to reuse it ?