feat(azure-storage): added the ability to access the underlying BlobServiceClient

[Outternet]

This commit mainly add the ablity to get the BlobServiceClient from the AzureStorageService, to avoid duplicate configuration

Servel other tasks where required: Updating depedencies, add emulator based testing, add serviceUrlProvider.

PR Checklist

Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:

• The commit message follows our guidelines: https://github.com/nestjs/nest/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md
• Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
• Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)

PR Type

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

• Bugfix
• Feature
• Code style update (formatting, local variables)
• Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
• Build related changes
• CI related changes
• Other... Please describe:

What is the current behavior?

It is currently not possible to re-download or otherwise manipulate a file after upload reusing the config defined in the AzureStorageModule.

• it is also not possible to fully test this behevour with an emulator (only unittests)
  • It is not possible to set a endpoint other then blob.storage.core.windows.net.

What is the new behavior?

• All functionality is now tested with both unit tests and function tests using an emulator.
  npm run functiontest
• It is possible to configure a location other than microsoft's own servers.
  serviceUrlProvider: () => "my new url"
• it's possible to manipulate files (see readme example for more information)
  service.getContainerClient().<do something>

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

• Yes
• No

Other information

Although no breaking changes have been made in this PR, some questionable decisions have been made in the past (in the current version). This is especially true of the UploadedFileMetadata that currently provides options that are not being used during upload. (Unless I'm missing something).

The problem in #142 is much deeper and requires more work than expected and possibly breaking changes. That PR still has some interesting helpers/ideas that could be added, but are beyond the scope of this PR.

The dependencies are broken, old and vulnerable. I didn't want to make any (breaking) changes to this PR, so I left it primarily as is.