feat: Add OpenFeature.Extensions.Hosting package

[austindrenski]

Closes: #264

---

Related

• Evaluation Context Propagation spec#81
  • Transaction Context Propagation Proposal ofep#32
  • feat: context propagation spec#227

TODO:

• moar tests
  • evaluation context
    • IHostingEnvironment sample
  • hooks
  • providers:
    • none
    • one
    • multiple
• xml docs
• readme docs

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 65.78947% with 39 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 90.82%. Comparing base (11a0333) to head (bcf19c4).
Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head bcf19c4 differs from pull request most recent head eda289e. Consider uploading reports for the commit eda289e to get more accurate results

Files	Patch %	Lines
...Extensions.Hosting/OpenFeatureBuilderExtensions.cs	58.10%	29 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
src/Shared/CallerArgumentExpressionAttribute.cs	0.00%	5 Missing ⚠️
src/Shared/Check.cs	66.66%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...sions.Hosting/Internal/OpenFeatureHostedService.cs	93.75%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #181      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.40%   90.82%   -4.59%     
==========================================
  Files          27       29       +2     
  Lines        1111     1068      -43     
  Branches      120      113       -7     
==========================================
- Hits         1060      970      -90     
- Misses         34       70      +36     
- Partials       17       28      +11     

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

[austindrenski]

FYI couple of known test failures:

1. DCO is intentionally broken by a temp commit containing a squash of fix: Fix ArgumentOutOfRangeException for empty hooks #187 and fix: More robust shutdown/cleanup/reset #188. Once those PRs are merged, I'll rebase and elide the temp commit.
2. dotnet-format is being weird about OpenFeatureHostedService and I'm pretty sure its just a sign that we need to migrate from the dotnet-format tool, to the new dotnet format that's baked into recent SDKs.
3. flaky unit tests: pretty sure these are all related to the async stuff, so hoping they'll be less common after chore(deps): update dependency flagsmith to v5.3.0 dotnet-sdk-contrib#184 lands, but in the meantime please just re-run the test if its failed at the time of your review.

[beeme1mr]

Is it possible to do request scoped DI? It would be really great to include an example where you sent request specific context in the client. Since it's a slightly more advanced topic, perhaps it could be included in the evaluation context section later in the doc.

[beeme1mr]

It looks like it should work. Here's an example from .NET FeatureManagement.

https://github.com/microsoft/FeatureManagement-Dotnet?tab=readme-ov-file#using-httpcontext

[beeme1mr]

We'll need to time this merge closely with the release or move this to a separate PR that can be merged after the 2.0 release.

[kinyoklion]

I don't think the meta-data name for a provider is an appropriate name here. We probably need a way to make providers that encapsulates that data.

Simple example is using one provider with two different environments.

But more than that the provider name is a different domain of names. It is the domain of the provider implementation, where client names are in the domain of the application. An application developer needs to know and assign that name.

[toddbaert]

💯