OS Core Lib Azure merge requestshttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests2023-08-18T12:45:15Zhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/76log exception for not found record on read request2023-08-18T12:45:15ZNeelesh Thakurlog exception for not found record on read requestM1 - Release 0.1https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/74policy service feature flag2023-08-18T12:45:18ZAlok Joshipolicy service feature flagAdd policy service feature flag by adding 'policy-service-enabled' field for partitions. The field will act as a feature flag to use Policy service in integration with Storage and Search for certain partitions.Add policy service feature flag by adding 'policy-service-enabled' field for partitions. The field will act as a feature flag to use Policy service in integration with Storage and Search for certain partitions.M1 - Release 0.1Alok JoshiAlok Joshihttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/73Fixing Bulk Executor Configurations2023-08-18T12:45:20ZJasonFixing Bulk Executor Configurations## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [**YES**/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [**YES**/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [YES/NO/**...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [**YES**/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [**YES**/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [YES/NO/**NA**] I have added tests to cover my changes.
* [YES/NO/**NA**] All new and existing tests passed.
* [**YES**/NO/NA] My code follows the code style of this project.
* [YES/NO/**NA**] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission.
The issues:
- Cosmos Bulk Executor configuration is currently using System.getProperty when it needs to be using System.getenv (properties are properties passed in when running the .jar, env references environment variables, which is what we want
- Cosmos Bulk Executor is currently creating a number of threads = 100 * # of available processors. We want to change this to a constant number to be conscious of memory usage by bulk executor.
The fixes:
- Switched to System.getenv
- Switched to a constant of 100 threads maxM1 - Release 0.1JasonJasonhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/72Fetching Azure subscription id from keyvault2023-08-18T12:45:21Zharshit aggarwalFetching Azure subscription id from keyvaultThis MR is making changes to fetch Azure subscription Id from Azure Keyvault
Since this property is not partition sensitive, therefore it should not be part of partition specific properties and we can directly read it from keyvault like...This MR is making changes to fetch Azure subscription Id from Azure Keyvault
Since this property is not partition sensitive, therefore it should not be part of partition specific properties and we can directly read it from keyvault like servicePrincipleAppIdConfig
Relates with https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/65
and https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/register/-/merge_requests/64M1 - Release 0.1Neelesh ThakurAlok JoshiNeelesh Thakurhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/69Context Aware Concurrency2023-08-18T12:45:25ZVibhuti Sharma [Microsoft]Context Aware Concurrency## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?
* [NO] I have u...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?
* [NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [YES] I have added tests to cover my changes.
* [YES] All new and existing tests passed.
* [YES] My code follows the code style of this project.
* [YES] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission.
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
<!-- Please describe the current behavior that you are modifying, 'or' link to a relevant issue.
Feel free to add references to any design documents you might have shared with the team or any
related MR that you are building on top of. -->
High level design:
Create custom classes for concurrency which extend logic from classes in java.util.concurrency package but ensure that the MDC and request context is copied from main thread to child threads.
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
To handle concurrency in our services, we make use of java.util.concurrency package. This package contains classes like `ExecutorService` which handle the thread pool for us and execute Runnable objects in new threads. The implementation is such that thread context is not copied from main thread to child threads, and we lose the MDC context map and other request attributes in the child threads.
<!-- Please add implementation details of current set of changes and how the code changes are
doing what they are expected to do. Are there any complex loops or designated code blocks that
should be elaborated? Is there some contextual knowledge that the reviewer should be aware of? -->
Change details:
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
Added unit tests for `CustomExecutors` and `CustomThreadPoolExecutorUtil`.
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- NO
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Pending items
----------------
<!-- Are there changes that you'll introduce in upcoming MRs and hence did not add in this one? Next steps of your
feature can also be mentioned here. -->
Upcoming MR in storage service to add CustomThreadPoolFactory - https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/storage/-/merge_requests/126
## Reviewer request
-------------------
- Please provide an ETA when you plan to review this MR. Write a comment to decline or provide an ETA.
- Block the MR if you feel there is less testing or no details in the MR
- Please cover the following aspects in the MR
-- Coding design: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Logic design\>_
-- _\<Any other context mention here>_
OR
-- _\<Component 1>_: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- _\<CosmosDB>_: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- _\<ServiceBus>_ _\<Reviewer3>_
-- _\<Mention any other component and owner>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change.M1 - Release 0.1Vibhuti Sharma [Microsoft]Vibhuti Sharma [Microsoft]https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/68Fixing UT for Service Bus Client2023-08-18T12:45:27ZKomal MakkarFixing UT for Service Bus Client## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [YES] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [YES] I have added tests...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [YES] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [YES] I have added tests to cover my changes.
* [YES] All new and existing tests passed.
* [YES] My code follows the code style of this project.
* [YES] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission.
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
<!-- Please describe the current behavior that you are modifying, 'or' link to a relevant issue.
Feel free to add references to any design documents you might have shared with the team or any
related MR that you are building on top of. -->
High level design:
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
The UT
> should_return_client_when_partition_valid
was failing. Fixed the same by refactoring.
<!-- Please add implementation details of current set of changes and how the code changes are
doing what they are expected to do. Are there any complex loops or designated code blocks that
should be elaborated? Is there some contextual knowledge that the reviewer should be aware of? -->
Change details:
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
Increased.
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [NO]
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Pending items
----------------
<!-- Are there changes that you'll introduce in upcoming MRs and hence did not add in this one? Next steps of your
feature can also be mentioned here. -->
None.
## Reviewer request
-------------------
- Please provide an ETA when you plan to review this MR. Write a comment to decline or provide an ETA.
- Block the MR if you feel there is less testing or no details in the MR
- Please cover the following aspects in the MR
-- Coding design: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Logic design\>_
-- _\<Any other context mention here>_
OR
-- _\<Component 1>_: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- _\<CosmosDB>_: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- _\<ServiceBus>_ _\<Reviewer3>_
-- _\<Mention any other component and owner>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->M1 - Release 0.1Hema Vishnu Pola [Microsoft]Hema Vishnu Pola [Microsoft]https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/67Added tests for AuthUtils2023-08-18T12:45:29ZKelly DomicoAdded tests for AuthUtilsConverted AuthUtils to Spring components
Added tests for AuthUtilsConverted AuthUtils to Spring components
Added tests for AuthUtilsM1 - Release 0.1Kishore BattulaKishore Battulahttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/66Adding Cosmos Bulk Insert2023-08-18T12:45:31ZJasonAdding Cosmos Bulk Insert## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [**YES**/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [**YES**/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [**YES**/N...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [**YES**/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [**YES**/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [**YES**/NO/NA] I have added tests to cover my changes.
* [**YES**/NO/NA] All new and existing tests passed.
* [**YES**/NO/NA] My code follows the code style of this project.
* [YES/NO/**NA**] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission.
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
<!-- Please describe the current behavior that you are modifying, 'or' link to a relevant issue.
Feel free to add references to any design documents you might have shared with the team or any
related MR that you are building on top of. -->
Our current CosmosStore does not perform well with large amounts of writes. This MR introduces the DocumentBulkExecutor package, which is specifically designed by Microsoft to perform large writes. Initial tests have shown large performance gains when using this new package for writing large volumes of records to storage.
High level design: Mirrors the pattern of CosmosClient. Has a class responsible for creating the client, and another class (ComsosStoreBulkOperations) that exposes the APIs from the package.
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. --> N/A
<!-- Please add implementation details of current set of changes and how the code changes are
doing what they are expected to do. Are there any complex loops or designated code blocks that
should be elaborated? Is there some contextual knowledge that the reviewer should be aware of? -->
Change details: New constants are defined in CosmosBulkExecutorConfiguration file. Default values for these constants were set based on the default values specified in the SDK itself. Specifying the number of RUs to allocate for Cosmos bulk executor does not have a default, so I specified the default as 4000 (our default environment configuration has a total of 12000 RUs). Other than that it should hopefully be straight forward as it mirror the pattern laid out by CosmosClient.
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
Unit test coverage mirrors that of original CosmosStore implementation. Tests for null partition db, empty partition id, and that the client is being cached correctly.
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [YES/**NO**]
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Pending items
----------------
<!-- Are there changes that you'll introduce in upcoming MRs and hence did not add in this one? Next steps of your
feature can also be mentioned here. -->
No, not in this repo. The new code will be used first in storage service.
## Reviewer request
-------------------
- Please provide an ETA when you plan to review this MR. Write a comment to decline or provide an ETA.
- Block the MR if you feel there is less testing or no details in the MR
- Please cover the following aspects in the MR
-- Coding design: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Logic design\>_
-- _\<Any other context mention here>_
OR
-- _\<Component 1>_: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- _\<CosmosDB>_: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- _\<ServiceBus>_ _\<Reviewer3>_
-- _\<Mention any other component and owner>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->M1 - Release 0.1JasonJasonhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/65adds CryptographyClientFactory andEventGridManagerFactory2023-08-18T12:45:32ZAliaksei Darafeyeuadds CryptographyClientFactory andEventGridManagerFactoryM1 - Release 0.1Neelesh ThakurAlok JoshiNeelesh Thakurhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/64Enabling logging config by default2023-08-18T12:45:34ZVibhuti Sharma [Microsoft]Enabling logging config by default## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?
* [NA] I have u...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?
* [NA] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [NA] I have added tests to cover my changes.
* [YES] All new and existing tests passed.
* [YES] My code follows the code style of this project.
* [NA] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission.
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
<!-- Please describe the current behavior that you are modifying, 'or' link to a relevant issue.
Feel free to add references to any design documents you might have shared with the team or any
related MR that you are building on top of. -->
High level design:
Enabling the configuration needed for logging by default.
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
<!-- Please add implementation details of current set of changes and how the code changes are
doing what they are expected to do. Are there any complex loops or designated code blocks that
should be elaborated? Is there some contextual knowledge that the reviewer should be aware of? -->
Change details:
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
- NA
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- NO
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Pending items
----------------
<!-- Are there changes that you'll introduce in upcoming MRs and hence did not add in this one? Next steps of your
feature can also be mentioned here. -->
- NA
## Reviewer request
-------------------
- Please provide an ETA when you plan to review this MR. Write a comment to decline or provide an ETA.
- Block the MR if you feel there is less testing or no details in the MR
- Please cover the following aspects in the MR
-- Coding design: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Logic design\>_
-- _\<Any other context mention here>_
OR
-- _\<Component 1>_: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- _\<CosmosDB>_: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- _\<ServiceBus>_ _\<Reviewer3>_
-- _\<Mention any other component and owner>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->M1 - Release 0.1Vibhuti Sharma [Microsoft]Vibhuti Sharma [Microsoft]https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/63Added replaceItem Method in the cosmosStore. Added UTs for the new method.2023-08-18T12:45:36ZMayank Saggar [Microsoft]Added replaceItem Method in the cosmosStore. Added UTs for the new method.M1 - Release 0.1https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/61Add to customDimensions from MDC for logged requests2023-08-18T12:45:39ZKelly DomicoAdd to customDimensions from MDC for logged requestsCurrently, the MDC map key-value pairs are not included in logged requests. Request and exception logging is provided out-of-the-box with the App Insights and Spring Boot web JARs.
This MR adds a TelemetryInitializer for web requests th...Currently, the MDC map key-value pairs are not included in logged requests. Request and exception logging is provided out-of-the-box with the App Insights and Spring Boot web JARs.
This MR adds a TelemetryInitializer for web requests that will allow adding custom dimensions for requests. It copies the MDC properties map to the Telemetry object's properties map. The properties will then show up in customDimensions in the requests table.M1 - Release 0.1Kishore BattulaVibhuti Sharma [Microsoft]Kishore Battulahttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/60Add user ID to MDC map in Slf4jMDCFilter2023-08-18T12:45:40ZKelly DomicoAdd user ID to MDC map in Slf4jMDCFilterAdd user ID to MDC map in Slf4jMDCFilter so it can be added to the customDimensions object in App Insights tables. By default, we are using the subject for the user ID.
Additional add util class for unwrapping token to get claims.Add user ID to MDC map in Slf4jMDCFilter so it can be added to the customDimensions object in App Insights tables. By default, we are using the subject for the user ID.
Additional add util class for unwrapping token to get claims.M1 - Release 0.1https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/59EG Topic Abstraction2023-08-18T12:45:42ZKomal MakkarEG Topic Abstraction## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?
* [YES] I have ...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?
* [YES] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [YES] I have added tests to cover my changes.
* [YES] All new and existing tests passed.
* [YES] My code follows the code style of this project.
* [YES] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission.
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
<!-- Please describe the current behavior that you are modifying, 'or' link to a relevant issue.
Feel free to add references to any design documents you might have shared with the team or any
related MR that you are building on top of. -->
High level design:
Event Grid Abstraction is done here for Topics. ATM, it is being consumed by Storage service.
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
<!-- Please add implementation details of current set of changes and how the code changes are
doing what they are expected to do. Are there any complex loops or designated code blocks that
should be elaborated? Is there some contextual knowledge that the reviewer should be aware of? -->
Change details:
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
![image](/uploads/1a1e6405f0d255ba0e9df87f9d4bbde7/image.png)
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [NO]
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Pending items
----------------
<!-- Are there changes that you'll introduce in upcoming MRs and hence did not add in this one? Next steps of your
feature can also be mentioned here. -->
Event Grid Subscriber changes are supposed to be a part of the partition effort driven by SLB.
## Reviewer request
-------------------
- Please provide an ETA when you plan to review this MR. Write a comment to decline or provide an ETA.
- Block the MR if you feel there is less testing or no details in the MR
- Please cover the following aspects in the MR
-- Coding design: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Logic design\>_
-- _\<Any other context mention here>_
OR
-- _\<Component 1>_: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- _\<CosmosDB>_: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- _\<ServiceBus>_ _\<Reviewer3>_
-- _\<Mention any other component and owner>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->M1 - Release 0.1Kishore BattulaKishore Battulahttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/58Adding event grid to Partition Info Azure2023-08-18T12:45:44ZKomal MakkarAdding event grid to Partition Info Azure## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?
* [YES] I have ...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?
* [YES] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [NO] I have added tests to cover my changes. Will take a change for EG facading and then ensure coverage
* [YES] All new and existing tests passed.
* [YES] My code follows the code style of this project.
* [YES] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission.
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
<!-- Please describe the current behavior that you are modifying, 'or' link to a relevant issue.
Feel free to add references to any design documents you might have shared with the team or any
related MR that you are building on top of. -->
The partition sensitivity is needed for Storage service to pick the right EG infra. The change brings up the same.
High level design:
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
<!-- Please add implementation details of current set of changes and how the code changes are
doing what they are expected to do. Are there any complex loops or designated code blocks that
should be elaborated? Is there some contextual knowledge that the reviewer should be aware of? -->
Change details:
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [YES/NO]
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Pending items
----------------
<!-- Are there changes that you'll introduce in upcoming MRs and hence did not add in this one? Next steps of your
feature can also be mentioned here. -->
1. The data has to be added manually (via scripts) in PartitionInfo before this change.
2. The EG clients will come up as a separate MR.
## Reviewer request
-------------------
- Please provide an ETA when you plan to review this MR. Write a comment to decline or provide an ETA.
- Block the MR if you feel there is less testing or no details in the MR
- Please cover the following aspects in the MR
-- Coding design: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- Backward Compatibility: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- Feature Logic: _\<Logic design\>_
-- _\<Any other context mention here>_
OR
-- _\<Component 1>_: _\<Reviewer1>_
-- _\<CosmosDB>_: _\<Reviewer2>_
-- _\<ServiceBus>_ _\<Reviewer3>_
-- _\<Mention any other component and owner>_
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this MR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->M1 - Release 0.1Kishore BattulaKishore Battulahttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/56Add trace and dependency logging to KeyVaultFacade2023-08-18T12:45:47ZKelly DomicoAdd trace and dependency logging to KeyVaultFacadeAdd trace and dependency logging (via CoreLogger) to KeyVaultFacade.Add trace and dependency logging (via CoreLogger) to KeyVaultFacade.M1 - Release 0.1Kishore BattulaKishore Battulahttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/53Adding azure-core & azure-core-http-netty as managed dependencies2023-08-18T12:45:50ZAbhishek PatilAdding azure-core & azure-core-http-netty as managed dependenciesM1 - Release 0.1Abhishek PatilAbhishek Patilhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/52Added UTs for sas token methods2023-08-18T12:45:52ZAalekh JainAdded UTs for sas token methods## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [YES] I have added tests ...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it?
* [NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
* [YES] I have added tests to cover my changes.
* [YES] All new and existing tests passed.
* [YES] My code follows the code style of this project.
* [NO] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission.
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
Added unit tests for `getSasToken` and `generatePreSignedUrl` (for container) methods.
## Reviewer request
-------------------
- Please provide an ETA when you plan to review this MR. Write a comment to decline or provide an ETA.M1 - Release 0.1https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/51Use CoreLogger in Slf4JLogger implementation2023-08-18T12:45:54ZKelly DomicoUse CoreLogger in Slf4JLogger implementation## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
Use CoreLogger in Slf4JLogger implementation so services that uses the JaxRsDpsLog will automatically log using the new mechanism.
## Test cover...## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
Use CoreLogger in Slf4JLogger implementation so services that uses the JaxRsDpsLog will automatically log using the new mechanism.
## Test coverage:
------------------
Unit tests are updated and coverage remains the same at 100% class coverage.
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
No
## Pending items
----------------
NoneM1 - Release 0.1https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/50Container sas url2023-08-18T12:45:55ZKishore BattulaContainer sas urlM1 - Release 0.1