Cleanup: Standardize logger message formatting in ApiServer.java

[he1l0world]

Description

This PR improves logging consistency across the logging statements in ApiServer.java

Types of changes

• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• [] Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
• Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
• build/CI
• test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

• Major
• Minor

Bug Severity

• BLOCKER
• Critical
• Major
• Minor
• Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR standardizes logger message formatting in ApiServer.java by converting from string concatenation to parameterized logging. The changes improve logging performance and consistency by using placeholders ({}) instead of string concatenation with the + operator.

• Replaces string concatenation with parameterized logging format across multiple log statements
• Maintains the same log message content while improving performance and readability
• Updates debug, trace, info, and warn level logging statements

[sureshanaparti]

clgtm

[sureshanaparti]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@sureshanaparti a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 8 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 17.57%. Comparing base (db61470) to head (f976759).
⚠️ Report is 92 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
server/src/main/java/com/cloud/api/ApiServer.java	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main   #11188   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     17.56%   17.57%           
- Complexity    15548    15550    +2     
=========================================
  Files          5913     5913           
  Lines        529440   529440           
  Branches      64670    64670           
=========================================
+ Hits          93019    93025    +6     
+ Misses       425963   425957    -6     
  Partials      10458    10458           

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	3.58% <ø> (ø)
unittests	18.63% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

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.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 14161

[DaanHoogland]

clgtm, it is a trivial change, so can we consider if the message level needs adjusting in the same PR? cc @sureshanaparti @JoaoJandre @bernardodemarco @winterhazel

[he1l0world]

@JoaoJandre Sounds good! I will address them!

[github-actions]

This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch.

[JoaoJandre]

Hi @he1l0world, could you resolve the conflicts here?

[he1l0world]

@JoaoJandre Updated

[bernardodemarco]

code lgtm, only log messages standardization