All Submissions:
- [YES/NO] I have added an explanation of what changes in this merge do and why we should include it? YES
- [YES/NO] I have updated the documentation accordingly. YES
- [YES/NO/NA] I have added tests to cover my changes. YES
- [YES/NO/NA] All new and existing tests passed. YES
- [YES/NO/NA] My code follows the code style of this project. YES
- [YES/NO/NA] I ran lint checks locally prior to submission. YES
What is the issue or story related to the change?
Description:
Consuming the BlobServiceClientFactory, as introduced in this MR: !20 (merged)
The previous implementation uses BlobContainerClientFactory which returns an instance of BlobContainerClient. Having BlobContainerClient takes away the flexibility to choose the storage container name on demand, as the container client is tied to a <storage account, container name> combo. Using the service client removes this dependency. Now the container name can be parameterized.
Issue:
Does this introduce a breaking change?
- [YES/NO]
NO
Other information
Next set of changes would be to update Schema service and any other service using BlobStore class, to pass the container name in parameters.
FYI @harshit283 , @kibattul , @polavishnu