chore: refactor store code

[samayer12]

Description

Refactor the store.ts file.

End to End Test:
(See Pepr Excellent Examples)

Related Issue

Fixes #959

Relates to #

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Other (security config, docs update, etc)

Checklist before merging

• Unit, Journey, E2E Tests, docs, adr added or updated as needed
• Contributor Guide Steps followed

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 72.52747% with 25 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 78.01%. Comparing base (7260348) to head (cfb86da).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/lib/controller/store.ts	14.81%	23 Missing ⚠️
src/lib/controller/index.ts	33.33%	2 Missing ⚠️

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (7260348) and HEAD (cfb86da). Click for more details.

HEAD has 1 upload less than BASE

Flag	BASE (7260348)	HEAD (cfb86da)
	3	2

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1259      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   85.64%   78.01%   -7.64%     
==========================================
  Files          31       35       +4     
  Lines        1449     1669     +220     
  Branches      319      370      +51     
==========================================
+ Hits         1241     1302      +61     
- Misses        206      365     +159     
  Partials        2        2              

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/lib/capability.ts	94.90% <100.00%> (ø)
src/lib/controller/storeCache.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/lib/k8s.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/lib/logger.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/lib/controller/index.ts	9.30% <33.33%> (ø)
src/lib/controller/store.ts	10.95% <14.81%> (-6.15%)	⬇️

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

[schaeferka]

I wasn't sure if you meant to leave the "skip" tests in, so I left a comment on them.

A couple of months ago we had a discussion about fuzz testing. I'm not sure if it relates to the fuzzing items you removed, but it may be worth double checking.

[samayer12]

A couple of months ago we had a discussion about fuzz testing. I'm not sure if it relates to the fuzzing items you removed, but it may be worth double checking.

@schaeferka, the fuzzing that is on main didn't seem to provide any value to the unit tests for the refactored logger.test.ts test cases so I removed it. It looks like it was used to provide input to test against the "negative" case (i.e., should not redact) and I think the current tests cover that.

[btlghrants]

Seems reasonable. 👍

[btlghrants]

LGTM