AzureStorage auto create queues

[RussKie]

Description

• Add the ability to register and deep link to individual Azure storage queues.
• Auto-create Azure storage queues upon registration.

This change is, essentially, a copy of #9008 adapter for Azure storage queues.

Addendum to #5167

Checklist

• Is this feature complete?
  • Yes. Ready to ship.
  • No. Follow-up changes expected.
• Are you including unit tests for the changes and scenario tests if relevant?
  • Yes
  • No
• Did you add public API?
  • Yes
    • If yes, did you have an API Review for it?
      • Yes
      • No
    • Did you add <remarks /> and <code /> elements on your triple slash comments?
      • Yes
      • No
  • No
• Does the change make any security assumptions or guarantees?
  • Yes
    • If yes, have you done a threat model and had a security review?
      • Yes
      • No
  • No
• Does the change require an update in our Aspire docs?
  • Yes
    • Link to aspire-docs issue (consider using one of the following templates):
      • New (or update) doc-idea template
      • New breaking-change template
      • New diagnostic template
  • No

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This pull request adds support for auto-creating and deep linking to individual Azure Storage queues along with associated tests and configuration changes. Key changes include adding new settings and client extensions for Azure queues, updating configuration bindings and health checks, and integrating new queue-based provisioning in the hosting layer.

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 24 out of 25 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
tests/Aspire.Azure.Storage.Queues.Tests/ConformanceTests.cs	Added test support to configure options for queues.
tests/Aspire.Azure.Storage.Queues.Tests/AzureBlobStorageContainerSettingsTests.cs	Introduces tests for connection string parsing for queue settings but the file name implies blob container settings.
src/Components/Aspire.Azure.Storage.Queues/AzureStorageQueuesSettings.cs	Changed the Azure queues settings from sealed to non-sealed.
src/Components/Aspire.Azure.Storage.Queues/AzureStorageQueueSettings.cs	Added connection string parsing logic for queue settings.
src/Components/Aspire.Azure.Storage.Queues/AspireQueueStorageExtensions.cs	Updated extension methods for registering queue and keyed queue clients.
src/Components/Aspire.Azure.Storage.Queues/AspireQueueStorageExtensions.StorageQueueComponent.cs	Added client registration for single queue operations with a potential error message discrepancy.
src/Aspire.Hosting.Azure.Storage/AzureStorageExtensions.cs	Updated storage resource provisioning to include queues.
src/Aspire.Hosting.Azure.Storage/AzureQueueStorageResource.cs & AzureQueueStorageQueueResource.cs	Added resource representations and provisioning conversions for queues.
playground/*	Updated sample applications and functions to use the new queue registrations and naming conventions.

Files not reviewed (1)

• src/Aspire.Hosting.Azure.Storage/Aspire.Hosting.Azure.Storage.csproj: Language not supported

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

tests/Aspire.Azure.Storage.Queues.Tests/AzureBlobStorageContainerSettingsTests.cs:11

• The file is named 'AzureBlobStorageContainerSettingsTests.cs' but the class under test is 'AzureStorageQueueSettingsTests'. Consider renaming the file to match the tested subject for clarity.

public class AzureStorageQueueSettingsTests

[davidfowl]

Lets get in the dev side of things and leave out the azure changes until the issue is fixed.

[davidfowl]

This markdown lint thing is failing every PR

[RussKie]

Lets get in the dev side of things and leave out the azure changes until the issue is fixed.

The current implementation is working well with the emulator.
Once there's an update to the Azure.Provisioning.Storage is available, then it should work for the Azure as well (some bicep-related tests will need to be updated).

This markdown lint thing is failing every PR

This is something unrelated, appears to have started failing for all PRs across the repo.

[davidfowl]

Yea I see how we messed up these APIs now and have been thinking about how we transition this API to something better now that this model is better understood.

[RussKie]

I had to rebase and rework implementations due to #9472 (thanks @sebastienros for fixing that).

[davidfowl]

@sebastienros @eerhardt Can we take this over the finish line for 9.4, @RussKie got us 90% there.

[davidfowl]

@sebastienros this is done yes?