Load feature flags from the dedicated feature flag resource endpoint by yuanqu72 · Pull Request #48222 · Azure/azure-sdk-for-python

yuanqu72 · 2026-07-22T23:01:36Z

Summary

Loads feature flags from the new dedicated Feature Flag resource endpoint (FeatureFlagClient/FeatureFlag) in azure-appconfiguration-provider, in addition to the existing key-value based feature flags.

When feature_flag_enabled=True, feature flags created via the feature flag resource endpoint are now loaded automatically alongside key-value based feature flags.
Both kinds are merged into the same feature_management.feature_flags list. When a resource-based feature flag and a key-value based feature flag share the same name, the resource-based one takes precedence.
No new load() options are required to opt in; existing feature_flag_selectors filter both kinds.
Bumped minimum dependency on azure-appconfiguration to >=1.10.0b1 for FeatureFlagClient/FeatureFlag support.

Dependency on #47620

⚠️ This PR is stacked on top of #47620 (AppConfig-FFEndpoint branch), which introduces the FeatureFlagClient APIs in azure-appconfiguration that this change depends on. Because of that, this PR targets AppConfig-FFEndpoint instead of main — the diff here is scoped only to sdk/appconfiguration/azure-appconfiguration-provider.

This PR should be reviewed/merged after (or together with) #47620, once that lands in main.

Changes

_azureappconfigurationprovider.py / aio/_azureappconfigurationproviderasync.py: load and merge feature flags from the feature flag resource endpoint
_client_manager.py / aio/_async_client_manager.py: new client manager support for feature flag resource clients
_constants.py, _request_tracing_context.py: new constants and request tracing updates for the feature flag resource path
New samples: samples/feature_flag_resource_sample.py, samples/async_feature_flag_resource_sample.py
New tests: tests/test_provider_feature_flag_resources.py, tests/test_async_provider_feature_flag_resources.py, tests/test_azureappconfigurationproviderbase.py, tests/test_configuration_client_manager.py
CHANGELOG.md, README.md, samples/README.md updated

Testing

Added unit tests and integ tests covering feature flag resource loading, merging/precedence behavior, and client manager creation (sync + async). All of them passed locally:

✅ All 360 tests passed (7m52s, 0 failures, 0 skips)

…in the provider Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

azure-pipelines · 2026-07-22T23:01:52Z

Azure Pipelines: 10 pipeline(s) were filtered out due to trigger conditions. There may be pipelines that require an authorized user to comment /azp run to run.

mrm9084 · 2026-07-22T23:28:08Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2026-07-22T23:28:14Z

You have several pipelines (over 10) configured to build pull requests in this repository. Specify which pipelines you would like to run by using /azp run [pipelines] command. You can specify multiple pipelines using a comma separated list.

mrm9084 · 2026-07-22T23:28:46Z

/azp run appconfiguration

azure-pipelines · 2026-07-22T23:28:52Z

No pipelines are associated with this pull request.

mrm9084 · 2026-07-22T23:30:45Z

/azp run python - appconfiguration

azure-pipelines · 2026-07-22T23:31:09Z

Azure Pipelines: Successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

mrm9084 · 2026-07-24T22:51:27Z

        return False

+    @distributed_trace
+    @distributed_trace


Why is there two of these?

mrm9084 · 2026-07-24T22:52:51Z

+        loaded_feature_flags: List[FeatureFlag] = []
+        page_etags: List[List[str]] = []
+        # Needs to be removed unknown keyword argument for the feature flag client
+        kwargs.pop("sentinel_keys", None)


I know this is in the other methods, but we shouldn't need it anymore. We have a utils method that validates the header.

mrm9084 · 2026-07-24T22:56:36Z

+            return loaded_feature_flags, [[] for _ in feature_flag_selectors]
+        for select in feature_flag_selectors:
+            selector_etags: List[str] = []
+            if select.snapshot_name is not None:


This seems weird, I know that we use the same selects as "key value feature flags".

mrm9084 · 2026-07-24T22:57:48Z

+            selector_etags: List[str] = []
+            if select.snapshot_name is not None:
+                # Snapshots are not supported by the feature flag resource endpoint
+                page_etags.append(selector_etags)


Is there a way to not have this, it seems weird having an empty selector for something that wasn't loaded. Typically we do this to support selecting an empty set, and that having the item appear live.

mrm9084 · 2026-07-24T22:58:46Z

+            async for page in iterator:
+                async for ff in page:
+                    loaded_feature_flags.append(ff)
+                selector_etags.append(iterator.etag)  # type: ignore[attr-defined]


The fact that we ignore this seems wrong. Either we have something wrong above, or the sdk isn't correct.

mrm9084 · 2026-07-24T23:03:17Z

+        if self._feature_flag_client is None:
+            return False
+        for i, select in enumerate(feature_flag_selectors):
+            if select.snapshot_name is not None:


I'm wondering if instead of skipping the snapshots every time, we just filter them out at startup. We can then remove all of the snapshot logic from the 'new feature flags`.

mrm9084 · 2026-07-24T23:05:43Z

                retry_backoff_max=retry_backoff_max,
                **kwargs,
            ),
+            FeatureFlagClient(


We should probably only create a feature flag client if feature flag loading is enabled.

mrm9084 · 2026-07-24T23:12:44Z

+        # Per-selector collection ETags for feature flags loaded from the feature flag resource endpoint. This is
+        # independent of the key-value based feature_flag_page_etags, since the resource endpoint is a separate
+        # resource type with its own change-detection mechanism.
+        self._feature_flag_resource_etags: List[List[str]] = []
+        # Feature flags are loaded from two independent sources: the classic key-value store, and the newer
+        # dedicated feature flag resource endpoint. Each source's processed output is cached separately so that a
+        # refresh of one source does not require re-processing or discarding the other source's data. The two are
+        # merged (resource-based feature flags take precedence on identifier collision) whenever either changes.


These and a few others sort of seem like copilot comments about the properties. This seems more like copilot direction than property descriptions.

mrm9084 · 2026-07-24T23:18:59Z

+                    # Key-value based feature flags store the variant value under "configuration_value". Feature
+                    # flags loaded from the feature flag resource endpoint store it under "value" instead.


This is a problem https://github.com/microsoft/FeatureManagement/blob/01d585c91d128457e49634f773813e9530c6d82b/Schema/FeatureFlag.v2.0.0.schema.json#L149

https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/43666/changes#diff-c368649ea9d7b61e4787eefba09611083ffc2ebbfe0ba8edf313416af2100aecR353

@jimmyca15, was this intentional? I didn't realize this till now.

This is intentional verified.

mrm9084 · 2026-07-24T23:24:18Z

                    if "configuration_value" in v:
                        allocation_id += (
                            f"{json.dumps(v.get('configuration_value', ''), separators=(',', ':'), sort_keys=True)}"
                        )
+                    elif "value" in v:
+                        allocation_id += f"{json.dumps(v.get('value', ''), separators=(',', ':'), sort_keys=True)}"


I'm wondering if we want to swap this around. FF endpoint feature flags have a server-side enforced schema, while ff value feature flags don't.

Either way we should use reference_path_segment so we don't guess.

mrm9084 · 2026-07-24T23:31:18Z

 ALLOCATION_ID_KEY = "AllocationId"
 ETAG_KEY = "ETag"

+# Identifier field used by feature flags loaded from the classic key-value store.


Update everywhere with the new terms. "Feature Flags" and "Enhanced Feature Flags"

mrm9084 · 2026-07-24T23:37:50Z

+            FEATURE_FLAG_NAME_FIELD: feature_flag.name,
+            "enabled": feature_flag.enabled,
+        }
+        if feature_flag.label and not feature_flag.label.isspace():


I don't think we do this isspace check anywhere else. I just checked it isn't against our test api, but it isn't allowed in the portal.

mrm9084 · 2026-07-24T23:40:33Z

            # Feature flag value is not a valid JSON
            return {}

+    def _process_feature_flag_resource(self, feature_flag: FeatureFlag) -> Dict[str, Any]:


If we can't make all kv feature flags FeatureFlag maybe make a helper method for this. I'd rather not have two copies of this logic.

mrm9084 · 2026-07-24T23:45:13Z

+            merged[identifier] = ff
+        for ff in resource_feature_flags:
+            identifier = ff.get(FEATURE_FLAG_NAME_FIELD)
+            merged[identifier] = ff


I just realized this is also going to be an issue. We need to convert these to JSON, then change the name field to be 'id' to match the schema.

Can you validate that this new provider works with the feature flag library with zero changes on the feature flag libraries part.

mrm9084 · 2026-07-24T23:45:59Z

 * **Configuration not refreshing** — Make sure you are calling `config.refresh()` periodically (e.g., before each request in a web app). The provider does not auto-refresh in the background.
 * **Startup failures** — If the store is unreachable during startup, the provider will retry until `startup_timeout` (default 100 seconds) is exceeded. Increase this value if your store is expected to have high latency.

+## Testing 


I think we should move this to it's own file, or a readme inside the testing folder.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Adds dedicated feature-flag resource loading to the App Configuration provider, alongside existing key-value feature flags.

Changes:

Adds synchronous and asynchronous loading, merging, refresh, and telemetry support.
Adds integration/unit tests and samples.
Updates dependency, version, changelog, documentation, and recordings.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 21 out of 21 changed files in this pull request and generated 6 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
`tests/testcase.py`	Adds resource test helpers.
`tests/test_provider_feature_flag_resources.py`	Tests synchronous resource loading.
`tests/test_configuration_client_manager.py`	Tests resource paging and ETags.
`tests/test_azureappconfigurationproviderbase.py`	Tests conversion and merging.
`tests/asynctestcase.py`	Adds asynchronous test helpers.
`tests/aio/test_async_provider_feature_flag_resources.py`	Tests asynchronous resource loading.
`setup.py`	Raises the App Configuration dependency.
`samples/README.md`	Lists the new samples.
`samples/feature_flag_resource_sample.py`	Demonstrates synchronous usage.
`samples/async_feature_flag_resource_sample.py`	Demonstrates asynchronous usage.
`README.md`	Documents resource flags and testing.
`CHANGELOG.md`	Records the feature and dependency update.
`aio/_azureappconfigurationproviderasync.py`	Integrates asynchronous loading and refresh.
`aio/_async_client_manager.py`	Adds asynchronous resource-client support.
`_version.py`	Sets version `2.6.0b1`.
`_request_tracing_context.py`	Tracks filters by name.
`_constants.py`	Adds identifier and reference constants.
`_client_manager.py`	Adds synchronous resource-client support.
`_azureappconfigurationproviderbase.py`	Converts, caches, and merges resource flags.
`_azureappconfigurationprovider.py`	Integrates synchronous loading and refresh.
`assets.json`	Updates test recording assets.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

sdk/appconfiguration/azure-appconfiguration-provider/azure/appconfiguration/provider/_azureappconfigurationproviderbase.py:455

An empty list is a valid refreshed result when the last resource flag is deleted, but this truthiness check leaves _processed_resource_feature_flags unchanged; the subsequent merge therefore keeps serving the deleted flag. Treat None as “not refreshed” and an empty list as “refreshed to empty” for both sources and for the merge condition.

        if feature_flag_resources:

+        if feature_flags or feature_flag_resources:
            # Reset feature flag usage
            self._tracing_context.reset_feature_filter_usage()


+        feature_flag_value: Dict[str, Any] = {
+            FEATURE_FLAG_NAME_FIELD: feature_flag.name,
+            "enabled": feature_flag.enabled,


+    @distributed_trace
+    @distributed_trace


+            if (settings_refreshed or feature_flags or feature_flag_resources) and self._on_refresh_success:
                self._on_refresh_success()


+            if (settings_refreshed or feature_flags or feature_flag_resources) and self._on_refresh_success:
                self._on_refresh_success()


+                if not self._feature_flag_resource_etags or client.check_feature_flag_resource_etags(
+                    self._feature_flag_selectors, self._feature_flag_resource_etags, headers=headers, **kwargs
+                ):
+                    feature_flag_resources, feature_flag_resource_etags = client.load_feature_flag_resources(


Load feature flags from the dedicated feature flag resource endpoint …

2907d04

…in the provider Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

yuanqu72 requested review from avanigupta, jimmyca15 and mrm9084 as code owners July 22, 2026 23:01

github-actions Bot added the App Configuration Azure.ApplicationModel.Configuration label Jul 22, 2026

yuanqu72 changed the title ~~Load feature flags from the dedicated feature flag resource endpoint …~~ Load feature flags from the dedicated feature flag resource endpoint Jul 22, 2026

mrm9084 requested changes Jul 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

mrm9084 reviewed Jul 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

mrm9084 requested a review from Copilot July 24, 2026 23:41

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of mrm9084 July 24, 2026 23:42 View session

mrm9084 reviewed Jul 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot AI reviewed Jul 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

		# Key-value based feature flags store the variant value under "configuration_value". Feature
		# flags loaded from the feature flag resource endpoint store it under "value" instead.

		if (settings_refreshed or feature_flags or feature_flag_resources) and self._on_refresh_success:
		self._on_refresh_success()

Uh oh!

Conversation

yuanqu72 commented Jul 22, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary

Dependency on #47620

Changes

Testing

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines Bot commented Jul 22, 2026

Uh oh!

mrm9084 commented Jul 22, 2026

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines Bot commented Jul 22, 2026

Uh oh!

mrm9084 commented Jul 22, 2026

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines Bot commented Jul 22, 2026

Uh oh!

mrm9084 commented Jul 22, 2026

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines Bot commented Jul 22, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

yuanqu72 commented Jul 22, 2026 •

edited

Loading