create-store | Create state atoms that are updated via reducers | State Container library

The error is most probably due to the following. When you declare a state, you need to initialize the state props. You do this by passing a default state to the reducer when it runs for the first time. However, your default state is set to en empty object:

When you assign a function to an onclick attribute, the earlier onclick method assigned (if any) will be removed.

How do I create a shared access signature with a stored access policy for an Azure Blob container in Azure Portal?

Simple answer to your question is that as of today you can't create a shared access signature (SAS) using a stored access policy in Azure Portal. This feature is not there yet. In fact, feature to create a SAS on a blob container is not there on the portal as of yet. You could only create account level SAS using Azure Portal.

If you need to create a SAS on a container using a stored access policy, please use Microsoft Storage Explorer tool (or any other storage explorer tool that has support for blobs management). Using this tool you will be able to specify a stored access policy when creating a SAS on the container.

The checklist for this error should be something like:

1. Does table XYZ_TABLE exist? (Did you spell it right? Is it actually named in double-quotes as something like "xyz_table" or "XYZ Table"?)
2. Is it in the expected schema, SCHEMA_ADM?
3. Are privileges such as SELECT granted directly to the package owner, SCHEMA_DAT?
4. Is there a private or public synonym with the expected name? (e.g. there might be a synonym X for table Y, but the code refers to Y.)
5. Or, is the code prefixing it with the schema name e.g. SCHEMA_DAT.XYZ_TABLE?
6. Is there a package or type with the same name as the schema (SCHEMA_DAT)? This could create a naming conflict where the compiler finds the package instead of the schema, and then looks in that for something called XYZ_TABLE.

Your requirements may vary, but it's usually better to create a synonym than to hardcode the schema name (less to type, more flexibility if things change), and private synonyms are preferable to public synonyms (security, as they don't broadcast your schema structure, and more flexible in case you want to direct different users to different objects, or add another schema later with different requirements).