feat: UN-2166 Passed optional container name from backend to runner

[chandrasekharan-zipstack]

What

• Passed container name from backend to runner
• MINOR: Renamed run_id to file_execution_id in parts concerning WF execution

Why

• Previously container name was logged in the backend and a different one was generated and used by the runner which resulted in confusion during debugging and tracing
• Ensuring a single container name is logged for a run and using the same throughout

How

• Passed via the HTTP call to the runner

Can this PR break any existing features. If yes, please list possible items. If no, please explain why. (PS: Admins do not merge the PR without this section filled)

• No, changes made with defaults - tests and and all associated code is updated

Dependencies Versions

• Added unstract-core to unstract-tool-sandbox

Notes on Testing

• Tested a WF run locally and it works against docker

Screenshots

Checklist

I have read and understood the Contribution Guidelines.

[muhammad-ali-e]

LGTM overall, left few NITs

[github-actions]

filepath	function	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{passed}}$$	SUBTOTAL
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{runner/src/unstract/runner/clients/test\_docker.py}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{test\_logs}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{runner/src/unstract/runner/clients/test\_docker.py}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{test\_cleanup}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{runner/src/unstract/runner/clients/test\_docker.py}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{test\_cleanup\_skip}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{runner/src/unstract/runner/clients/test\_docker.py}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{test\_client\_init}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{runner/src/unstract/runner/clients/test\_docker.py}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{test\_get\_image\_exists}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{runner/src/unstract/runner/clients/test\_docker.py}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{test\_get\_image}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{runner/src/unstract/runner/clients/test\_docker.py}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{test\_get\_container\_run\_config}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{runner/src/unstract/runner/clients/test\_docker.py}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{test\_get\_container\_run\_config\_without\_mount}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{runner/src/unstract/runner/clients/test\_docker.py}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{test\_run\_container}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{TOTAL}}$$		$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{9}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{9}}$$

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[ritwik-g]

I feel like you have combined way too many changes in to this one PR making it a bit difficult to review. If the PR only had the container name related changes it would have been easier to review. Keeping the PR with single responsibility help the reviewers. Especially with some items like file_name removal the new retry count logic in the name. With all these changes am finding it difficult to review the PR.

When we are not hard pressed for time this might be something passable. But now since we are trying to take this change quickly in the other changes are becoming an unnecessary burden. It takes longer to review and the chances for bugs also increases.

Anyway since @muhammad-ali-e has approved I would consider this relatively okay. For some items outside runner I don't have enough context to understand the changes. So I am not thoroughly reviewing those.

But I have left one comment which needs to be addressed. Please check that