feat: Extract minimal DI integration to OpenFeature.Providers.DependencyInjection

[arttonoyan]

Important

Update. 2025-11-10
Following the discussion in #596 (comment). the package name in this proposal is updated from OpenFeature.DependencyInjection to OpenFeature.Providers.DependencyInjection. Rationale. clearer scope for provider authors. thinner provider packages. reduced coupling with the SDK.

This PR

Extract the minimal, provider-agnostic DI surface into a new package: OpenFeature.DependencyInjection.Abstractions.
This isolates the contracts and lightweight wiring needed to integrate any OpenFeature provider without pulling in a concrete implementation.

Related Issues

Fixes #587

Notes

• Options split: Extracted provider-agnostic configuration from OpenFeatureOptions into a new base options type: OpenFeatureProviderOptions.
• Inheritance: OpenFeatureOptions now inherits from OpenFeatureProviderOptions.
• Internal wiring update: Internal configuration that previously targeted OpenFeatureOptions now targets OpenFeatureProviderOptions.

Before (internal)

services.AddOptions<OpenFeatureOptions>()
    .Configure(options =>
    {
        options.AddProviderName(null);
    });

After (internal)

services.AddOptions<OpenFeatureProviderOptions>()
    .Configure(options =>
    {
        options.AddProviderName(null);
    });

Note: This is an internal refactor. It does not affect consumers unless they were directly modifying OpenFeatureOptions via DI options configuration (which is not a supported/typical usage).

---

Impact

• No new functionality.
• Behavior unchanged at runtime (same provider selection, same evaluation outcomes, same logs).
• Binary/source compatibility: Consumers using the documented extension methods and standard registration remain unaffected.
• Potential touchpoints: Only internal code paths (or unconventional consumer code directly configuring OpenFeatureOptions) require updates to target OpenFeatureProviderOptions.

---

How to test

This is a regression-only refactor.

Expectations

• All existing unit/integration tests pass unchanged.
• No DI resolution or startup configuration differences.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 95.55556% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.91%. Comparing base (ddd8f22) to head (579ac49).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...yInjection/OpenFeatureProviderBuilderExtensions.cs	90.24%	0 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #596      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.99%   89.91%   -0.09%     
==========================================
  Files          77       80       +3     
  Lines        3198     3212      +14     
  Branches      368      373       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits         2878     2888      +10     
  Misses        251      251              
- Partials       69       73       +4     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[askpt]

Great work! I only added a couple of minor comments.

Please have a chat with @kylejuliandev to try understand the impact on his deprecations efforts. I remember he mentioned a couple of fixes he was working on for the DI and I don't want that effort to get lost during this PR.

[askpt]

cancellationToken seems to not be used here.

[kylejuliandev]

I had always assumed SetProviderAsync would have a cancellationToken overload, but it doesn't appear like it does

dotnet-sdk/src/OpenFeature/Api.cs

Lines 37 to 66 in 7805184

	/// <summary>
	/// Sets the default feature provider. In order to wait for the provider to be set, and initialization to complete,
	/// await the returned task.
	/// </summary>
	/// <remarks>The provider cannot be set to null. Attempting to set the provider to null has no effect. May throw an exception if <paramref name="featureProvider"/> cannot be initialized.</remarks>
	/// <param name="featureProvider">Implementation of <see cref="FeatureProvider"/></param>
	public async Task SetProviderAsync(FeatureProvider featureProvider)
	{
	this._eventExecutor.RegisterDefaultFeatureProvider(featureProvider);
	await this._repository.SetProviderAsync(featureProvider, this.GetContext(), this.AfterInitialization, this.AfterError).ConfigureAwait(false);
	}
	/// <summary>
	/// Binds the feature provider to the given domain. In order to wait for the provider to be set, and
	/// initialization to complete, await the returned task.
	/// </summary>
	/// <remarks>The provider cannot be set to null. Attempting to set the provider to null has no effect. May throw an exception if <paramref name="featureProvider"/> cannot be initialized.</remarks>
	/// <param name="domain">An identifier which logically binds clients with providers</param>
	/// <param name="featureProvider">Implementation of <see cref="FeatureProvider"/></param>
	/// <exception cref="ArgumentNullException">domain cannot be null or empty</exception>
	public async Task SetProviderAsync(string domain, FeatureProvider featureProvider)
	{
	if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(domain))
	{
	throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(domain));
	}
	this._eventExecutor.RegisterClientFeatureProvider(domain, featureProvider);
	await this._repository.SetProviderAsync(domain, featureProvider, this.GetContext(), this.AfterInitialization, this.AfterError).ConfigureAwait(false);
	}

[arttonoyan]

@askpt @kylejuliandev I’ve made all the requested changes. I only left out the README.md. If that’s OK, I’ll handle it in a separate ticket. Please review again.

Quick question: Should I apply the same changes to the DI package, or skip it because it’s obsolete?
Need Help: I can’t figure out the dotnet format / check-format job error. Could you help with this?

[askpt]

@askpt @kylejuliandev I’ve made all the requested changes. I only left out the README.md. If that’s OK, I’ll handle it in a separate ticket. Please review again.

Quick question: Should I apply the same changes to the DI package, or skip it because it’s obsolete? Need Help: I can’t figure out the dotnet format / check-format job error. Could you help with this?

@arttonoyan just execute dotnet format OpenFeature.slnx at the root of the repository to clear the error. You also have a DCO failure.

[arttonoyan]

@askpt @kylejuliandev Could you please do a final review? I’d like to merge this PR.

[askpt]

@arttonoyan Please update this action: https://github.com/open-feature/dotnet-sdk/blob/main/.github/workflows/release.yml. This package needs to be added to generate the security artefacts.

[arttonoyan]

@arttonoyan Please update this action: https://github.com/open-feature/dotnet-sdk/blob/main/.github/workflows/release.yml. This package needs to be added to generate the security artefacts.

done: 579ac49