biocred logger error() is deprecated, so make it a no-op

[phad]

Jira Ticket

DCMAW-18100

Description of changes

The biometric-credential library's Logger.error() method is due to be removed,
as it has an unintended consequence of causing double-logging, which inflates
error counts.

This PR makes the asyncIssueBiometricCredential lambda's implementation
of Logger.error() an empty, no-op method.

A follow-on PR will bump to the new version of biometric-credential (expected to
be v5.0.0) and will drop the method entirely.

Review guidance

Review checklist

Functional Review

• Functionality: Does it meet the acceptance criteria on the ticket and work as expected?
• Requirements: Does the code meet functional and non-functional requirements including compliance with programme standards and security gates?

Security & Compliance

• Personally Identifiable Information: Is it possible for PII to be logged?
• Security Considerations: Are there any security implications that need to be addressed?

Quality Assurance

• Testing: Is the code well-tested with sufficient coverage to provide confidence in correctness?
• Edge Cases: Have edge cases been considered and handled appropriately?

Code Quality

• Readability: Is the code easy to understand for all team members, with clear naming and appropriate documentation?
• Maintainability: Is the code easy to change, reuse, and extend?
• Code Style: Does it follow our coding conventions and best practices?
• Code Quality: Is the code maintainable and following best practices? See Values, Principles & Practices

Observability & Operations

• Observability: Are there appropriate logs/metrics that would help debug and monitor the service?
• Performance: Are there any performance considerations or potential bottlenecks?
• Runbooks for Alarms: If an alarm has been created or updated, has a corresponding runbook been created or updated?
  • Critical alarms runbook
  • Warning alarms runbook

Documentation

• Documentation: Is the code well documented? Is there any existing documentation that needs updating?
• Comments: Are complex sections of code adequately commented if the intent is not clear?

Review PR:

• Title: Contains ticket number and clear summary of change
• Description: Has clear description of change

Evidence

Unit tests

Documentation

N/A

[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

[phad]

abandoned in favour of #1250