Cleaned some extensions

[svrooij]

Proposed change

• Support for User Secrets by not overriding it.

Type of change

• Dependency upgrade
• Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (which adds functionality to an existing integration)
• Breaking change (fix/feature causing existing functionality to break)
• Code quality improvements to existing code or addition of tests

Additional information

As discussed on discourt: https://discord.com/channels/686787269780176998/690899481046024233/1135518233458393108

• This PR fixes or closes issue: fixes #
• This PR is related to issue:
• Link to documentation pull request:

Checklist

• The code change is tested and works locally.
• Local tests pass. Your PR cannot be merged unless tests pass
• There is no commented out code in this PR.
• I have followed the [development checklist][dev-checklist]
• The code compiles without warnings (code quality chek)
• Tests have been added to verify that the new code works.

If user exposed functionality or configuration variables are added/changed:

• Documentation added/updated for www.home-assistant.io

[svrooij]

After some thought I think the original code already supported user secrets, they were just overridden. The last config provider takes precedence. the CreateDefaultBuilder sets:

• Environment
• commandline arguments
• appsettings.json and appsettings.{environment}.json
• User secrets (if set to development)
• Environment variables
• commandline arguments

Then the UseNetDaemonAppSettings adds the following (which thus override the previous set):

• appsettings.json and appsettings.{env}.json
• environment
• yaml

This means that if you would remove the token from the app settings it would not get overriden. Either way, no need to set the configuration providers twise.

[helto4real]

Looks good to me but I am not sure if environment is still working without the AddEnvironmentVariables() can you make sure that is not broken? As I understand the PR description it will still work right?

[svrooij]

The failing test is strange, they all succeed locally, I explicitly checked.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change: -0.12% ⚠️

Comparison is base (994a307) 80.92% compared to head (4e51621) 80.81%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev     #898      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   80.92%   80.81%   -0.12%     
==========================================
  Files         173      173              
  Lines        4320     4326       +6     
  Branches      434      435       +1     
==========================================
  Hits         3496     3496              
- Misses        644      650       +6     
  Partials      180      180              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	80.81% <0.00%> (-0.12%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
...mmon/Extensions/IConfigurationBuilderExtensions.cs	72.50% <0.00%> (-21.05%)	⬇️
...Runtime/Common/Extensions/HostBuilderExtensions.cs	37.50% <0.00%> (+3.21%)	⬆️

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

[svrooij]

@helto4real do you know how it’s possible for the coverage to go down if I removed code? That means the old code was not tested I guess? Want me to add tests for the yams settings part?

[helto4real]

The failing test is strange, they all succeed locally, I explicitly checked.

No it is ok! Sometimes it does this. The code was never tested in the first place and I am not sure how you would test this efficiently.

[helto4real]

Ok thanks for clarification and the PR!