Moveout UI layer methods to new interface.

[rajeshgithub001]

As i seen from comment and code , that IContentDefinitionService contains methods related to UI + Non UI functionality. So i created new abstraction IContentDefinitionViewModelService which will handle only UI layer view models.

May be new interface not placed at right location, please feel free to change. As still i am going through a code.

So,

IContentDefinitionManager => handles caching, loading, storing, and building definitions.
IContentDefinitionViewModelService => handles UI layer view model
IContentDefinitionService => handles content management.

Please go through changes!

Regards.

Fixes #18235

[github-actions]

Thank you for submitting your first pull request, awesome! 🚀 If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our contribution guide. This guide provides helpful information to ensure your contribution aligns with our standards. A core team member will review your pull request.

If you like Orchard Core, please star our repo and join our community channels.

[hishamco]

Accept the CLA

[rajeshgithub001]

@dotnet-policy-service agree

[rajeshgithub001]

@rajeshgithub001 please read the following Contributor License Agreement(CLA). If you agree with the CLA, please reply with the following information.

@dotnet-policy-service agree [company="{your company}"]

Options:

• (default - no company specified) I have sole ownership of intellectual property rights to my Submissions and I am not making Submissions in the course of work for my employer.

@dotnet-policy-service agree

• (when company given) I am making Submissions in the course of work for my employer (or my employer has intellectual property rights in my Submissions by contract or applicable law). I have permission from my employer to make Submissions and enter into this Agreement on behalf of my employer. By signing below, the defined term “You” includes me and my employer.

@dotnet-policy-service agree company="Microsoft"

Contributor License Agreement

Contribution License Agreement

This Contribution License Agreement ( “Agreement” ) is agreed to by the party signing below ( “You” ), and conveys certain license rights to the .NET Foundation ( “.NET Foundation” ) for Your contributions to .NET Foundation open source projects. This Agreement is effective as of the latest signature date below.

1. Definitions.

“Code” means the computer software code, whether in human-readable or machine-executable form, that is delivered by You to .NET Foundation under this Agreement.

“Project” means any of the projects owned or managed by .NET Foundation and offered under a license approved by the Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org).

“Submit” is the act of uploading, submitting, transmitting, or distributing code or other content to any Project, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Project for the purpose of discussing and improving that Project, but excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by You as “Not a Submission.”

“Submission” means the Code and any other copyrightable material Submitted by You, including any associated comments and documentation.

2. Your Submission. You must agree to the terms of this Agreement before making a Submission to any Project. This Agreement covers any and all Submissions that You, now or in the future (except as described in Section 4 below), Submit to any Project.

3. Originality of Work. You represent that each of Your Submissions is entirely Your original work. Should You wish to Submit materials that are not Your original work, You may Submit them separately to the Project if You (a) retain all copyright and license information that was in the materials as you received them, (b) in the description accompanying your Submission, include the phrase "Submission containing materials of a third party:" followed by the names of the third party and any licenses or other restrictions of which You are aware, and (c) follow any other instructions in the Project's written guidelines concerning Submissions.

4. Your Employer. References to “employer” in this Agreement include Your employer or anyone else for whom You are acting in making Your Submission, e.g. as a contractor, vendor, or agent. If Your Submission is made in the course of Your work for an employer or Your employer has intellectual property rights in Your Submission by contract or applicable law, You must secure permission from Your employer to make the Submission before signing this Agreement. In that case, the term “You” in this Agreement will refer to You and the employer collectively. If You change employers in the future and desire to Submit additional Submissions for the new employer, then You agree to sign a new Agreement and secure permission from the new employer before Submitting those Submissions.

5. Licenses.

a. Copyright License. You grant .NET Foundation, and those who receive the Submission directly or indirectly from .NET Foundation, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license in the Submission to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, and distribute the Submission and such derivative works, and to sublicense any or all of the foregoing rights to third parties.

b. Patent License. You grant .NET Foundation, and those who receive the Submission directly or indirectly from .NET Foundation, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license under Your patent claims that are necessarily infringed by the Submission or the combination of the Submission with the Project to which it was Submitted to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell and import or otherwise dispose of the Submission alone or with the Project.

c. Other Rights Reserved. Each party reserves all rights not expressly granted in this Agreement. No additional licenses or rights whatsoever (including, without limitation, any implied licenses) are granted by implication, exhaustion, estoppel or otherwise.

6. Representations and Warranties. You represent that You are legally entitled to grant the above licenses. You represent that each of Your Submissions is entirely Your original work (except as You may have disclosed under Section 3 ). You represent that You have secured permission from Your employer to make the Submission in cases where Your Submission is made in the course of Your work for Your employer or Your employer has intellectual property rights in Your Submission by contract or applicable law. If You are signing this Agreement on behalf of Your employer, You represent and warrant that You have the necessary authority to bind the listed employer to the obligations contained in this Agreement. You are not expected to provide support for Your Submission, unless You choose to do so. UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING, AND EXCEPT FOR THE WARRANTIES EXPRESSLY STATED IN SECTIONS 3, 4, AND 6 , THE SUBMISSION PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IS PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTY OF NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

7. Notice to .NET Foundation. You agree to notify .NET Foundation in writing of any facts or circumstances of which You later become aware that would make Your representations in this Agreement inaccurate in any respect.

8. Information about Submissions. You agree that contributions to Projects and information about contributions may be maintained indefinitely and disclosed publicly, including Your name and other information that You submit with Your Submission.

9. Governing Law/Jurisdiction. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Washington, and the parties consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the federal courts sitting in King County, Washington, unless no federal subject matter jurisdiction exists, in which case the parties consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the Superior Court of King County, Washington. The parties waive all defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non-conveniens.

10. Entire Agreement/Assignment. This Agreement is the entire agreement between the parties, and supersedes any and all prior agreements, understandings or communications, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement may be assigned by .NET Foundation.

.NET Foundation dedicates this Contribution License Agreement to the public domain according to the Creative Commons CC0 1.

@dotnet-policy-service agree

[rajeshgithub001]

Accept the CLA

Done

[Piedone]

While I also prefer not to use view models in service interfaces, I don't see much of a practical benefit to split the content definition operations like this (and thus have e.g. AddPartAsync in one service, and RemovePartAsync in another).

So, I don't think such a change is beneficial. But if you have really good arguments in favor of it, then please bring it up at one of the meetings and we can discuss it.

BTW the file name and some fields storing instances of IContentDefinitionViewModelService refer to it as "AppService".

[rajeshgithub001]

While I also prefer not to use view models in service interfaces, I don't see much of a practical benefit to split the content definition operations like this (and thus have e.g. AddPartAsync in one service, and RemovePartAsync in another).

So, I don't think such a change is beneficial. But if you have really good arguments in favor of it, then please bring it up at one of the meetings and we can discuss it.

BTW the file name and some fields storing instances of IContentDefinitionViewModelService refer to it as "AppService".

@Piedone @hishamco

No No, you are right,

IContentDefinitionViewModelService is not for service layer, is actually for UI layer. UI layer only usage view models thats why kept here.

Actually IContentDefinitionService need to be move to the service/domain layer. Its contract should only expose domain-level operations (add/remove/update definitions), returning domain entities or DTOs, not ViewModels.

And IContentDefinitionViewModelService in the UI layer should depend on IContentDefinitionService, and be responsible for mapping between domain entities ↔ ViewModels.

AddPartAsync & RemovePartAsync are design flaw. AddPartAsync returning view model but RemovePartAsync working on to remove typedefination. We need to refactor on this.

AddPartAsync must do following thing:-

1. Should not return a ViewModel.
2. Return a domain result (entity or ID).
   3 Let the UI service (IContentDefinitionViewModelService) call it, then map the result to a ViewModel.

So i refactor and push the changes:-

1. Move IContentDefinitionService to OrchardCore.ContentManagement.Abstractions project
2. Move ContentDefinitionService to OrchardCore.ContentManagement project
3. IContentDefinitionViewModelService will remain in OrchardCore.ContentTypes UI project.
4. AddPartAsync & RemovePartAsync in IContentDefinitionViewModelService will handle only VM related work.
5. CreatePartDefinitionAsync & RemovePartDefinitionAsync created in IContentDefinitionService which will only work on Definition and will use by IContentDefinitionViewModelService to map it to VM.

So its now a clear SoP.

Please go through updated PR.

Let me know still any confusion!

Regards.

[hishamco]

While I also prefer not to use view models in service interfaces,

I agree with @Piedone on this

[rajeshgithub001]

While I also prefer not to use view models in service interfaces,

I agree with @Piedone on this

I also, thats why i break out ViewModels logics to different class.

[rajeshgithub001]

@hishamco @Piedone

I think everyone should look into what actually changes done and achieved.

Refactor applied step by step without break app rather apply in one go.

Just nullyfy the efforts doesnt looks good.

Cheers.

[hishamco]

I think everyone should look into what actually changes done and achieved.

Just to let you know, all of us are busy with other work, but we are struggling to engage with the community. Second thing, you still didn't react to the last comment from @Piedone, do it or let us know your concern, and then you could request a review rather than mention the names

[rajeshgithub001]

I think everyone should look into what actually changes done and achieved.

Just to let you know, all of us are busy with other work, but we are struggling to engage with the community. Second thing, you still didn't react to the last comment from @Piedone, do it or let us know your concern, and then you could request a review rather than mention the names

Yeah thats fine. But Label attached seems very negative.

Cheers. :)

[hishamco]

We usually use the label "don't merge" to avoid anyone from the team from merging this accidentally, unless the one who created it is convinced somehow