Quantum: Make storage account optional for workspace creation by v-elegacheva · Pull Request #10478 · Azure/azure-cli-extensions

v-elegacheva · 2026-10-16T16:35:01Z

🤖 PR Validation — ⚠️ Review suggested

Breaking Changes
⚠️ None

⚠️Azure CLI Extensions Breaking Change Test

⚠️quantum

rule cmd_name rule_message suggest_message

⚠️ 1009 - ParaPropRemove quantum workspace create cmd quantum workspace create update parameter storage_account: removed property required=True

Summary

Make --storage-account optional for az quantum workspace create.

Changed

Use Azure Quantum managed storage when no storage account is provided.
Wait for managed-storage workspace provisioning to complete and surface provisioning failures.
Preserve the existing asynchronous behavior for explicit storage with --skip-role-assignment.
Update command help, examples, release history, and extension version.
Add V1 and V2 managed-storage test coverage, including V2 quota allocation.

Testing

Focused workspace suite:
80 passed
7 skipped
18 subtests passed
Managed-storage V1 and V2 scenarios passed in the broader live run.

microsoft-github-policy-service · 2026-10-16T16:36:03Z

Thank you for your contribution v-elegacheva! We will review the pull request and get back to you soon.

Copilot

🟢 Approval recommended

Static review found no blocking issues in the focused creation-path changes and accompanying coverage; tests were not run.

0 open findings

What changed in this PR

Makes storage optional when creating Azure Quantum workspaces, allowing Azure Quantum to provision managed storage.

Changes:

Adds managed-storage creation while preserving explicit storage support.
Updates help examples and adds unit and live-scenario coverage.
Bumps the extension to 1.0.0b31.

File	Description
`src/quantum/setup.py`	Bumps the extension version.
`src/quantum/HISTORY.rst`	Documents optional storage.
`src/quantum/azext_quantum/tests/latest/test_quantum_workspace.py`	Adds managed-storage tests and updates polling assertions.
`src/quantum/azext_quantum/operations/workspace.py`	Allows omitted storage and waits for managed-storage creation.
`src/quantum/azext_quantum/_params.py`	Explains the managed-storage default.
`src/quantum/azext_quantum/_help.py`	Updates workspace creation examples.

🧠 Review effort: Balanced

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

Zulfat Nutfullin (rigidit) · 2026-10-16T18:18:31Z

-        return quantum_workspace
+        if not storage_account:
+            poller = client.begin_create_or_update(
+                info.resource_group, info.name, quantum_workspace


when storage name is specified - we set polling=False, but otherwise not, can we use same pattern for both?

Got it! Updated for both

still not addressed

Oh, I combined the calls but left polling= not storage_account. I changed that to polling = False for both direct api creation cases

Zulfat Nutfullin (rigidit) · 2026-10-16T18:43:47Z

-    # Until the "--skip-role-assignment" parameter is deprecated, use the old non-ARM code to create a workspace without doing a role assignment
-    if skip_role_assignment:
+    # Use direct API creation when storage is service-managed or role assignment is explicitly skipped.
+    if skip_role_assignment or not storage_account:
        _add_quantum_providers(cmd, quantum_workspace, provider_sku_list, auto_accept, skip_autoadd)
        _apply_target_quotas(quantum_workspace.properties.providers, quota)


while we are here can we improve this to call v2 related methods only for v2 workspace, like:
if workspace_kind_value == WorkspaceKind.V2.value:
_apply_target_quotas(quantum_workspace.properties.providers, quota)
_validate_target_quota_bounds(cmd, info, quantum_workspace, quota, include_usage=False)
quantum_workspace.properties.workspace_kind = WorkspaceKind.V2
quantum_workspace.properties.api_key_enabled = False
and we probably don't need else here as we probably can skip setting api_key_enabled (check in backend)

and I think we have some of the code duplicate later, so we could just call it once

Got it! Also for removing of the else statement: looks like omitting apiKeyEnabled on a create-or-update request disables api keys for an existing v1 workspace (but it defaults to true for a new one). So I kept the = True assignment to preserve existing behavior

Zulfat Nutfullin (rigidit) · 2026-10-16T19:07:01Z

+                f'az quantum workspace create --auto-accept --skip-autoadd '
+                f'-g {test_resource_group} -w {test_workspace} '
+                f'-l {test_location} -r "{test_provider_sku_list}" -o json',
+                checks=[self.check('properties.provisioningState', 'Succeeded')]


it can take some time to be fully provisioned, can you use same waiting pattern that we have in other tests?

all updated!

Zulfat Nutfullin (rigidit) · 2026-10-16T19:11:07Z

+                ('workspace defaults', 'az quantum workspace clear')
+            )
+            run_cleanup_commands(self, cleanup_commands)
+
    def test_workspace_v2_create_destroy(self):


can you create additional test to test v2 workspace creation without specifiying storage account instead modifiying test that we need to test with user specified storage account

please make sure we cover e2e the following scenarios:

v1 workspace creation with user provided storage account

v1 workspace creation without provided storage so we will create managed storage account

v2 workspace creation with user provided storage account

v2 workspace creation without provided storage so we will create managed storage account ouselves

Got it! All 4 scenarios passed in local live (had to increasing the provisioning-wait budget a little bit because the case with V1 supplied-storage took a little longer)

rename tests accordingly: *_with_managed_storage, *_with_user_storage

Tests have been renamed to contain with_managed_storage or with_user_storage

Zulfat Nutfullin (rigidit) · 2026-10-16T19:27:25Z

+      - name: Create a new Azure Quantum workspace with a specific storage account.
+        text: |-
+            az quantum workspace create -g MyResourceGroup -w MyWorkspace -l MyLocation \\
+                --storage-account MyStorageAccountName


use short version for storage account parameter as you are using for other params here

Yong Zhang (yonzhan) · 2026-10-16T20:26:04Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2026-10-16T20:26:17Z

Azure Pipelines: Successfully started running 2 pipeline(s).

Zulfat Nutfullin (rigidit) · 2026-10-20T18:59:00Z

            ])

-            time.sleep(10)  # Wait for the workspace to be provisioned
+            _wait_for_workspace_provisioned(self, test_resource_group, test_workspace_temp, attempts=MANAGED_STORAGE_PROVISIONING_ATTEMPTS)  # Wait for the workspace to be provisioned


MANAGED_STORAGE_PROVISIONING_ATTEMPTS is now also used for the --skip-role-assignment case, which uses your own storage. A more general name would fit better.

Got it, renamed it WORKSPACE_PROVISIONING_ATTEMPTS

Zulfat Nutfullin (rigidit) · 2026-10-20T19:00:31Z

            self.cmd(f'az quantum workspace create --auto-accept -g {test_resource_group} -w {test_workspace_temp} -l {test_location} -a {test_storage_account} -r {test_provider_sku_list} -o json --skip-role-assignment', checks=[
                self.check("name", test_workspace_temp),
-                self.check("properties.provisioningState", "Accepted")  # Status is accepted since we're not linking the storage account.
+                self.check("properties.provisioningState", "Accepted")  # Accepted because --skip-role-assignment returns without waiting.


update test name to reflect that it tests v1 creation with user specified storage

Scenario 1 (V1 with your own storage account) checks too little. The existing test only confirms the deployment name. It doesn't check that the workspace is linked to that storage account. The V2 test does check this, so the same assertion could be copied over.

Test has been renamed. And I added _assert_user_storage() after provisioning in each v1 user-storage subcase. It verifies that the workspace is linked to the expected storage account and that managed stage is absent. V2 uses same helper

Zulfat Nutfullin (rigidit) · 2026-10-20T19:03:27Z

+        self.assertTrue(properties.get('managedStorageAccount'))
+        self.assertFalse(properties.get('storageAccount'))
+
+    def test_workspace_v1_create_destroy_without_storage_account(self):


better name: test_workspace_v1_create_destroy_with_managed_storage
for cases when user specified storage: test_workspace_v1_create_destroy_with_user_storage

Updated both names

Zulfat Nutfullin (rigidit) · 2026-10-20T19:05:07Z

 )

 TEST_DIR = os.path.abspath(os.path.join(os.path.abspath(__file__), '..'))
+MANAGED_STORAGE_PROVISIONING_ATTEMPTS = 60


why this is 60?

The v1 case with provided storage needed 31 checks (~6.5 minutes) before the provisioning succeeded. I increased the checks to 60 to allow headroom for slower runs. This allows roughly 11 minutes of waiting + command execution time

Zulfat Nutfullin (rigidit) · 2026-10-20T19:12:42Z

-        quantum_workspace = poller.result()
-        return quantum_workspace
+
+    if skip_role_assignment or not storage_account:


--skip-role-assignment is ignored without -a. It's silently ignored, and its help text hasn't changed.

I added validation to reject --skip-role-assignment when -a is omitted, since roles are managed automatically by azure quantum when no storage is provided by user

v-elegacheva added 3 commits October 13, 2026 11:14

Make storage account optional when creating workspace

e6c7769

Merge branch 'main' into ekat/quantum-remove-storage-option

55941a2

Quantum: Wait for managed-storage workspace creation

82e42c2

Copilot AI balanced review requested due to automatic review settings October 16, 2026 16:35

v-elegacheva marked this pull request as draft October 16, 2026 16:35

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of v-elegacheva October 16, 2026 16:35

View session

microsoft-github-policy-service Bot requested review from Ethan Yang (necusjz), ZelinWang (wangzelin007) and Yong Zhang (yonzhan) October 16, 2026 16:35

microsoft-github-policy-service Bot added the customer-reported Issues that are reported by GitHub users external to the Azure organization. label Oct 16, 2026

microsoft-github-policy-service Bot added the Auto-Assign Auto assign by bot label Oct 16, 2026

microsoft-github-policy-service Bot assigned Ethan Yang (necusjz) Oct 16, 2026

microsoft-github-policy-service Bot added Quantum az quantum act-codegen-extensibility-squad labels Oct 16, 2026

Copilot AI reviewed Oct 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

x-engineering-agent Bot added this to the November 2026 (2026-11-03) milestone Oct 16, 2026

v-elegacheva changed the title ~~Ekat/quantum remove storage option~~ Quantum: Make storage account optional upon workspace creation Oct 16, 2026

v-elegacheva changed the title ~~Quantum: Make storage account optional upon workspace creation~~ Quantum: Make storage account optional for workspace creation Oct 16, 2026

Zulfat Nutfullin (rigidit) reviewed Oct 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

Zulfat Nutfullin (rigidit) suggested changes Oct 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

Quantum: Address optional-storage review feedback

92162fc

Zulfat Nutfullin (rigidit) reviewed Oct 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Zulfat Nutfullin (rigidit) suggested changes Oct 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Quantum: Complete optional-storage review fixes

249ef4a

Conversation

v-elegacheva commented Oct 16, 2026 • edited by x-engineering-agent Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

🤖 PR Validation — ⚠️ Review suggested

Summary

Changed

Testing

Uh oh!

microsoft-github-policy-service Bot commented Oct 16, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

🟢 Approval recommended

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!

Zulfat Nutfullin (rigidit) Oct 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

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!

Yong Zhang (yonzhan) commented Oct 16, 2026

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines Bot commented Oct 16, 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!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

v-elegacheva commented Oct 16, 2026 •

edited by x-engineering-agent Bot

Loading

Zulfat Nutfullin (rigidit) Oct 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading