OS Core Lib Azure merge requestshttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests2022-12-22T15:07:26Zhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/267Added CORS Feature Flag2022-12-22T15:07:26ZSrishti SharmaAdded CORS Feature Flag1. Tested CORS Feature Flag and updated code
2. Removed checkStyle issues
3. Updated appropriate variables names in Test class
4. PBI: 14514 E2E integration CORS1. Tested CORS Feature Flag and updated code
2. Removed checkStyle issues
3. Updated appropriate variables names in Test class
4. PBI: 14514 E2E integration CORSM16 - Release 0.19Vineeth Guna [Microsoft]Vineeth Guna [Microsoft]https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/9Added Cosmos Client Factory to support partition based Cosmos client generation2023-08-18T12:47:03Zharshit aggarwalAdded Cosmos Client Factory to support partition based Cosmos client generationAdded Cosmos Client Factory to support partition based Cosmos client generation
WIT:7652848Added Cosmos Client Factory to support partition based Cosmos client generation
WIT:7652848M1 - Release 0.1harshit aggarwalharshit aggarwalhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/126added docs folder2023-08-18T12:44:26ZSmitha Manjunathadded docs folder## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] 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.
* [NA] I have added tes...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* [YES] 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.
* [NA] I have added tests to cover my changes.
* [NA] All new and existing tests passed.
* [NA] 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:
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?
-------------------------------------
- [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. -->
## 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. -->M7 - Release 0.10Smitha ManjunathSmitha Manjunathhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/127Added docs - updated notice file2022-01-11T13:24:34ZSmitha ManjunathAdded docs - updated notice file## 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...## 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. -->
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. -->
## 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. -->Smitha ManjunathSmitha Manjunathhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/251Added filters in log4j to filter out messages coming from core message receiver2023-05-13T05:08:17ZNaga Aneesh MylavarapuAdded filters in log4j to filter out messages coming from core message receiver## 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...## 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. -->
https://dev.azure.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/Open%20Energy%20Platform/_sprints/taskboard/Energy%20-%20Explorers/Open%20Energy%20Platform/Oct%20'22/Oct%20'22%20Sprint%203?workitem=7737
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: Added a regex filter to filter out messages of a particular pattern received from CoreMessageReceiver. Added a threshold filter to ensure that messages are removed only if their level is info or below.
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [YES/NO] 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. -->
## 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. -->Naga Aneesh MylavarapuNaga Aneesh Mylavarapuhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/253Added filter to remove specific logs from core message receiver2023-05-13T05:08:18ZNaga Aneesh MylavarapuAdded filter to remove specific logs from core message receiver## 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...## 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. -->
https://dev.azure.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/Open%20Energy%20Platform/_sprints/taskboard/Energy%20-%20Explorers/Open%20Energy%20Platform/Oct%20'22/Oct%20'22%20Sprint%203?workitem=7737
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:
Added a regex filter to filter out messages of a particular pattern received from CoreMessageReceiver. Added a threshold filter to ensure that messages are removed only if their level is info or below.
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [YES/NO]
- 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. -->
## 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. -->Naga Aneesh MylavarapuNaga Aneesh Mylavarapuhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/199Added getRedissonClient in RedisClientFactory and getLock in RedisAzureCache2023-08-18T12:43:15ZShiv SinghAdded getRedissonClient in RedisClientFactory and getLock in RedisAzureCacheThe **getLock** method is used by services to synchronize across multiple instances of a given service by acquiring a lock over the same _lockKey_. This is currently getting used by entitlements service.The **getLock** method is used by services to synchronize across multiple instances of a given service by acquiring a lock over the same _lockKey_. This is currently getting used by entitlements service.M12 - Release 0.15Shiv SinghShiv Singhhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/45Added getSasToken method in `BlobStore.java`2023-08-18T12:46:06ZAalekh JainAdded getSasToken method in `BlobStore.java`## 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.
* [NO] I have added tests t...## 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.
* [NO] I have added tests to cover my changes. (will be added)
* [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?
Please refer to the linked issue: #2
## Test coverage:
Tests to be added
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
- [NO]
## Pending items
- Adding UTs for `getSasToken` method.
## Reviewer request
## Other information
This method can be used across various services wherever there is a need to interact with the blobs (creating/modifying/reading the blobs) present in the storage container for either
In order to generate sas tokens, we need to provide `StorageSharedKeyCredential`. This must be done by obtaining the BlobServiceClient by using credentials `storageSharedKeyCredential`. Refer to [this](https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/data-flow/ingestion/ingestion-workflow/-/blob/e37f19400d9f4e9f417c137d6ecaaefb3609fc76/provider/workflow-azure/src/main/java/org/opengroup/osdu/workflow/provider/azure/config/AzureBootstrapConfig.java#L43) for a sample implementation (done for ingestion service).M1 - Release 0.1https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/297Added ingest accounts back2023-08-18T12:42:17ZDeepa KumariAdded ingest accounts backAdding back the ingestStorageAccountKey and Name that were removed previously here: https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/231
Workflow is using this property from here: h...Adding back the ingestStorageAccountKey and Name that were removed previously here: https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/231
Workflow is using this property from here: https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/data-flow/ingestion/ingestion-workflow/-/blob/master/provider/workflow-azure/src/main/java/org/opengroup/osdu/workflow/provider/azure/config/BlobServiceIngestClientFactory.java#L41M19 - Release 0.22Deepa KumariDeepa Kumarihttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/140Added LegalFactoryAzure and LegalAPIConfigBean2023-08-18T12:44:10ZMuskan SrivastavaAdded LegalFactoryAzure and LegalAPIConfigBean## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it? - YES
* Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?- NO
* I have updated...## All Submissions:
-------------------------------------
* I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it? - YES
* Does the MR contain pipeline/ helm chart related changes?- NO
* I have updated the documentation accordingly. - NO
* I have added tests to cover my changes. -NA
* 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. -YES
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
This change is a step forward to enable the services to configure following variables for service-to-service communication:
- Circuit Breaker
- Retry count for service unavailable strategy
- Connect timeout
- Connection Request Timeout
- Socket Timeout
<br>
All the above features are handled by HttpClientAzure class.
This MR essentially enables use of HttpClientAzure for legal service.
These configurations can be used for legal service now.
<br>
High level design: This MR adds 2 classes in total. <br>
- LegalAPIConfigAzure : creates a bean of type LegalAPIConfig
- LegalFactoryAzure : uses newly created HttpClientAzure internally so that configurable retires, CB and timeouts can be used for Legal Service.
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- NO
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Tests and Results
To test the CB and timeouts, I used the scenario where storage service calls legal service. Simulations were triggered by Firefly Flight
1. Circuit Breaker: To test this legal service was killed. Result is as follows![Screenshot__29_](/uploads/b3398d97c9b06a574209eeddf28d3231/Screenshot__29_.png)
2. Timeouts: To test this Socket Timeouts was configured to be 40 sec for any calls made to legal service. Latency was induced to legal service between the range of 45 sec and 50 sec.
![Screenshot__30_](/uploads/66d4191433187731e39be420c98fea5a/Screenshot__30_.png)M9 - Release 0.12Muskan SrivastavaMuskan Srivastavahttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/18Added mdc context on start of request2023-08-18T12:46:46ZKishore BattulaAdded mdc context on start of requestM1 - 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/286Added missing function for retrieving elastic versions for connected outer se...2023-03-15T04:39:01ZDeepa KumariAdded missing function for retrieving elastic versions for connected outer servicesThe connected outer services for azure do not contain elastic endpoints version. Analyzed the issue from Indexer and Search service and found that the implementation to getAllClustersSettings was missing inside ElasticClusterSettings cla...The connected outer services for azure do not contain elastic endpoints version. Analyzed the issue from Indexer and Search service and found that the implementation to getAllClustersSettings was missing inside ElasticClusterSettings class.
This MR is to add that behavior.M17 - Release 0.20Deepa KumariDeepa Kumarihttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/108Added multi partition support for storage account2021-06-09T05:55:02ZAalekh JainAdded multi partition support for storage accountcc: @harshit283, @abpatilcc: @harshit283, @abpatilhttps://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/340Added oid validation2024-03-20T11:36:24ZDeepa KumariAdded oid validationOID validation addition to address the issue: https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/security-and-compliance/entitlements/-/issues/166OID validation addition to address the issue: https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/security-and-compliance/entitlements/-/issues/166M23 - Release 0.26Deepa KumariDeepa Kumarihttps://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/105Added Retry for eventgrid2023-08-18T12:44:41ZRonak SakhujaAdded Retry for eventgrid## 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?
-------------------------------------
Eventgrid offers option for configuring Timeout values. For any service who wish not to use the default values, and want to provide custom values for the mentioned attributes, they will be able to after this change.
High level design:
![image](/uploads/a8ddd03daadbb289f4d25077a9bbc5a2/image.png)
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:
longRunningOperationRetryTimeout can be configured using
azure.eventgridtopic.longRunningOperationRetryTimeout
## Test coverage:
------------------
All changes are covered.
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- YES
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Pending items
----------------
## 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. -->M7 - Release 0.10https://community.opengroup.org/osdu/platform/system/lib/cloud/azure/os-core-lib-azure/-/merge_requests/39Added Slf4jBindingChecker2023-08-18T12:46:15ZVibhuti Sharma [Microsoft]Added Slf4jBindingChecker## 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.
* [NO] I have added tests t...## 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.
* [NO] 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:
Added logic to throw exception at application start if slf4j is not bound to log4j2
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
If there are multiple bindings available for slf4j, then the binding with log4j2 breaks and consequently the integration with appinsights also breaks. Till date only a warning was being thrown in this scenario, and the application would run without logs going to appinsights. There is a need to fail the application if appinsights integration is broken in such a way.
<!-- 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:
* Added component Slf4jBindingChecker
* This component contains a method - performCheck() - that checks the slf4j binding with log4j2, just after the component is initialized as it is annotated with '@PostConstruct'
* Method performCheck() throws a RunTimeException with appropriate error message if binding is not correct. This happens at application startup.
## Test coverage:
------------------
<!-- Mention unit test coverage of changes. -->
Not added
## 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/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/5Added transaction logging2020-07-24T14:56:09ZKishore BattulaAdded transaction logging## 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 t...## 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/NO/NA] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission.
## What is the issue or story related to the change?
-------------------------------------
Adding a slf4jLogger implementation for ILogger interface. Added logs to record start and end of a request
Description:
Issue: <!-- Link any __GitLab__ workitem(s) to this pull request. -->
## Does this introduce a breaking change?
-------------------------------------
- [NO]
<!-- If this introduces a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications below. -->
## Other information
-------------------------------------
<!-- Any other information that is important to this PR such as screenshots of how the component looks before and after the change. -->
Daniel SchollHema Vishnu Pola [Microsoft]Daniel Schollhttps://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 0.1