Fix for DI registration not completing as expected

[WhitWaldo]

Description

#1363 changed how clients registered themselves under the hood with DI to make for a more uniform process. With Workflow, this meant switching to a factory that attempts to load values from an injected IConfiguration.

Fix breakdown

• Updated to make IConfiguration injection optional as the caller might not be using ASP.NET Core and thus may not have actually registered this
• Updated to make IHttpClientFactory optional because while it's registered as part of using AddWorkflowClient, the caller might not be using that route (though they should)
• When the IConfiguration change was originally made, the idea was to use a factory that the IConfiguration and IHttpClientFactory are injected to as those would be resolved and used as part of the registration of the durable task functionality. Unfortunately, two key steps were overlooked: The factory itself was never registered and the method performing the necessary additional registrations was never invoked because it lived in a DI registration that would never resolve to invoke it. Corrected this by registering the factory as intended and by creating a scoped provider during registration that resolves and invokes the method ensuring that the types are registered on the IServiceCollection as intended.

Issue reference

We strive to have all PR being opened based on an issue, where the problem or feature have been discussed prior to implementation.

Please reference the issue this PR will close: #1385

Checklist

Please make sure you've completed the relevant tasks for this PR, out of the following list:

• Code compiles correctly
• Created/updated tests - WIP
• [N/A] Extended the documentation

[philliphoff]

I wonder if we might simplify the registration here a bit.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 71.05%. Comparing base (1b7c9f4) to head (998f46c).
Report is 61 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1386      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   67.28%   71.05%   +3.77%     
==========================================
  Files         174      188      +14     
  Lines        6025     6389     +364     
  Branches      671      697      +26     
==========================================
+ Hits         4054     4540     +486     
+ Misses       1802     1684     -118     
+ Partials      169      165       -4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
net6	71.04% <ø> (+3.77%)	⬆️
net7	71.04% <ø> (+3.77%)	⬆️
net8	71.04% <ø> (+3.77%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[philliphoff]

Needs fix for build break, but otherwise looks good. Wish we didn't have to create a services scope to pull dependencies from the container, but I don't see a way to defer it any further.