Sanitize user input at log call sites

[Christdej]

Summary

Resolves the 13 open cs/log-forging (CWE-117) CodeQL alerts in AnalysisTriggerService.cs (10) and ThermalReferenceMetadataService.cs (3) by applying Sanitize.SanitizeUserInput directly at each logger.Log* call site.

Prior in-function upstream sanitization (e.g. input.X = Sanitize.SanitizeUserInput(input.X) at the top of service methods) is removed in favour of sanitizing only at the log call where the value is consumed. CodeQL's taint analysis loses the custom helper across .Select(...).ToList() projections, helper-method return values, DB round-trips, and private-helper parameters, so log-site sanitization is what reliably clears the alerts. Consolidating to log-site only also drops the duplication.

Controller-level entry-point sanitization added by #372/#398 is in different files and is unchanged.

Verification

• dotnet build api/api.csproj: 0 warnings / 0 errors.
• dotnet test: 88/88 pass.
• Diff: +18 / −50 lines.

Code-scanning alerts addressed

ThermalReferenceMetadataService.cs:

• https://github.com/equinor/sara/security/code-scanning/71
• https://github.com/equinor/sara/security/code-scanning/72
• https://github.com/equinor/sara/security/code-scanning/73

AnalysisTriggerService.cs:

• https://github.com/equinor/sara/security/code-scanning/74
• https://github.com/equinor/sara/security/code-scanning/75
• https://github.com/equinor/sara/security/code-scanning/76
• https://github.com/equinor/sara/security/code-scanning/77
• https://github.com/equinor/sara/security/code-scanning/78
• https://github.com/equinor/sara/security/code-scanning/79
• https://github.com/equinor/sara/security/code-scanning/80
• https://github.com/equinor/sara/security/code-scanning/81
• https://github.com/equinor/sara/security/code-scanning/82
• https://github.com/equinor/sara/security/code-scanning/83

[Eddasol]

Should be covered by this PR: #398

Also, I would prefer if the commit message were a bit more to the point and followed the commit message best practice

[Christdej]

Should be covered by this PR: #398

Also, I would prefer if the commit message were a bit more to the point and followed the commit message best practice

Yes, approved your PR. Lets merge that first and see what security scanning alterts remain.