Sigv4 Signer optimizations

[alextwoods]

Sigv4 Signer optimizations

Motivation and Context

This PR addresses a few signer hotspots identified during analysis of SDK profiling data.

Modifications

Many services (particularly RPC protocols) have requests with no path ("/") or query parameters and we can short circuit expensive allocations/operations when creating canonical requests.

Testing

All existing signer tests pass + added a new benchmark. Results below captured on c5.4xlarge EC2 instance:

Before:   4759.084 ± 75.946 ns/op
After:    3547.477 ± 222.692 ns/op

Improvement: ~25%

Screenshots (if appropriate)

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

Checklist

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document
• Local run of mvn install succeeds
• My code follows the code style of this project
• My change requires a change to the Javadoc documentation
• I have updated the Javadoc documentation accordingly
• I have added tests to cover my changes
• All new and existing tests passed
• I have added a changelog entry. Adding a new entry must be accomplished by running the scripts/new-change script and following the instructions. Commit the new file created by the script in .changes/next-release with your changes.
• My change is to implement 1.11 parity feature and I have updated LaunchChangelog

License

• I confirm that this pull request can be released under the Apache 2 license

[alextwoods]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions 48.8% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 80%)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

RE: Code coverage - benchmark code is untested, all other code is at 100% coverage.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
79.9% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 80%)
C Reliability Rating on New Code (required ≥ A)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

Catch issues before they fail your Quality Gate with our IDE extension SonarQube for IDE

[github-actions]

This pull request has been closed and the conversation has been locked. Comments on closed PRs are hard for our team to see. If you need more assistance, please open a new issue that references this one.