@mitchdenny should we think about adding a test that verifies that members added to DistributedApplicationBuilder are exposed on the test builder? I imagine something that will fail whenever a new member is added that then requires either updating the test builder to expose it, or updating the test to explicitly confirm that we don't want to expose it.

Or we could look at making the test builder derive?

Would be a bigger (breaking?) change to change inheritance wouldn't it? Open to it, just wondering if there's something more pragmatic for the shorter term.

@mitchdenny should we think about adding a test that verifies that members added to DistributedApplicationBuilder are exposed on the test builder? I imagine something that will fail whenever a new member is added that then requires either updating the test builder to expose it, or updating the test to explicitly confirm that we don't want to expose it.

+1. Add a test with reflection over both. If the test builder is missing something from DistributedApplicationBuilder then throw an error unless in an allow list. New property on DistributedApplicationBuilder requires either adding it to test builder or adding it to allow list.

@mitchdenny are you planning to add a test as suggested, or log a follow-up issue?

I'll add a test.

/azp run

/azp run