[Storage] Investigate remaining skipped Storage tests

[vincenttran-msft]

Previous work has been done (#24550) to triage some skipped Storage tests, but more tests remain to be triage'd and investigated to completion. This issue tracks the remaining tests.

✔Checkmark = Resolved
☐ No checkmark = Not resolved, comment to the right

pytest.skip

• test_copy_blob_with_blob_tier_specified | Skipped because doesn't work on premium, needs further investigation
• test_rename_directory_to_non_empty_directory | Continue to skip, requires further investigation
• test_rename_directory_to_non_empty_directory_async | Continue to skip, requires further investigation
• test_rename_from_a_shorter_directory_to_longer_directory_async | Continue to skip, requires further investigation
• test_rename_from_a_shorter_directory_to_longer_directory | Continue to skip, requires further investigation
• test_rename_file_system_with_file_system_client | Continue to skip, requires further investigation
• test_rename_file_system_with_file_system_client | Continue to skip, requires further investigation
• test_restore_file_system_with_sas | Failing with ResourceExistsError (seems like test was poorly written, I think undelete needs some sleep time)
• test_restore_file_system_with_sas (async) | Failing with ResourceExistsError (seems like test was poorly written, I think undelete needs some sleep time)
• test_client_request_id_echo (file_client) | Azure test error with mgmt_settings_real.py
• test_client_request_id_echo (blob_client) | Azure test error with mgmt_settings_real.py
  For echo ID stuff:
  Client Request ID is different for every request, needs further investigation: https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-python/issues/8098"
  In my opinion, following this thread: [storage-blob] skip blob echo request id test #8131 , it sounds like this test needs to be refactored or removed entirely since this check has been relaxed from the service side (so we can't enforce it client side)
• test_retry_put_block_with_seekable_stream_async | Cryptic HttpResponseError
  from the stage_block call:
  

pytest.mark.skip

• test_premium_tier_set_tier_api_batch | TODO: Retry with premium acc (page blob not block blob)
• test_premium_tier_set_tier_api_batch | TODO: Retry with premium acc (page blob not block blob)
• test_premium_tier_set_tier_api_batch | TODO: Retry with premium acc (page blob not block blob)
• test_token_credential_with_batch_operation | Authority configuration error very confusing and cryptic, see OneNote
• test_filter_blobs_using_account_sas | Previously triage'd by me, still failing assert 2 != 1 😢
• test_rename_container_with_container_client (async) | Skipped citing feature not enabled, seems like still not enabled (InvalidQueryParameterValue)
• test_rename_container_with_container_client | Skipped citing feature not enabled, seems like still not enabled (InvalidQueryParameterValue)
• test_incremental_copy_blob | Failing for different error than cited, new error: TypeError: Session.request() got an unexpected keyword argument 'seal_blob'
• test_incremental_copy_blob (async) | Failing for different error than cited, new error: TypeError: Session.request() got an unexpected keyword argument 'seal_blob'
• test_close_single_handle_async | Needs further investigation, apparently don't run in live as setup highly manual

pytest.mark.skipif

• test_premium_tier_set_tier_api_batch | TODO: Retry with premium acc (page blob not block blob)
• test_token_credential_with_batch_operation | Authority configuration error very confusing and cryptic, see OneNote
• test_list_encoded_blobs | Comment says py2 and py3 recordings differ, but failing in live in Python3 (assert error 'dir1/dir2/file\uffff.blob' != 'dir1')

One-Off Uses

• Inside of test_large_block_blob.py (and async) we have a pytest.skip used if the platform.python_implementation() == 'Pypy'

[github-actions]

Hi @vincenttran-msft, we deeply appreciate your input into this project. Regrettably, this issue has remained unresolved for over 2 years and inactive for 30 days, leading us to the decision to close it. We've implemented this policy to maintain the relevance of our issue queue and facilitate easier navigation for new contributors. If you still believe this topic requires attention, please feel free to create a new issue, referencing this one. Thank you for your understanding and ongoing support.