refactor(storagecontrol): update sample managed_folder_list

[eapl-gemugami]

Description

Based on the RPC Workshop, this sample is updated to the current style guide.

Checklist

• I have followed Sample Guidelines from AUTHORING_GUIDE.MD
• Tests pass: nox -s py-3.9 (see Test Environment Setup)
• Lint pass: nox -s lint (see Test Environment Setup)
• Please merge this PR for me once it is approved

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @eapl-gemugami, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

I've refactored the managed_folder_list.py sample to align with the latest style guide and added a dedicated test file, managed_folder_list_test.py, to ensure its correctness.

Highlights

• Sample Refactoring: I've updated storagecontrol/managed_folder_list.py to use argparse for command-line arguments instead of sys.argv, improving argument parsing and help text. The client instantiation and resource path construction within the list_managed_folders function have also been streamlined for clarity and adherence to current best practices.
• New Test File: I've introduced storagecontrol/managed_folder_list_test.py, which includes a pytest based test to validate the list_managed_folders sample, ensuring its functionality and output format are as expected.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments or fill out our survey to provide feedback.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request refactors the managed_folder_list sample to align with current style guides, notably by using argparse for command-line argument handling and simplifying the Google Cloud client library usage. A new test file is also added. While the refactoring of the sample code is a good improvement, the new test in managed_folder_list_test.py is flawed and will likely fail. It attempts to list managed folders from a bucket where none have been created, and it uses a standard GCS bucket fixture instead of one with Hierarchical Namespace (HNS) enabled, which is a prerequisite for managed folders. I've provided a detailed comment with a suggested fix for the test.

[eapl-gemugami]

/gemini review

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request refactors the managed_folder_list sample to align with current style guides, introducing argparse for command-line arguments, adding a comprehensive docstring, and including a new test file. The changes are a definite improvement. I've provided a few suggestions to further enhance code style, documentation clarity, and test correctness. My feedback includes inlining a local constant, correcting indentation in a docstring example for consistency, and using the correct test fixture to ensure the new test passes.