Use generics in generator-angular

[Tcharl]

Improvement of #27289 (this one can be reviewed before because it's much simpler)

• Use generics for angular generator
• Get rid of methods and fields of the angular generator.ts in favor of contribution to AngularApplication and AngularEntity

Would definitely be happy to get a review in order to scale it to all the generators if the committers do feel like me thinking that it makes the code more clean ;-)

---

Please make sure the below checklist is followed for Pull Requests.

• All continuous integration tests are green
• Tests are added where necessary
• The JDL part is updated if necessary
• jhipster-online is updated if necessary
• Documentation is added/updated where necessary
• Coding Rules & Commit Guidelines as per our CONTRIBUTING.md document are followed

When you are still working on the PR, consider converting it to Draft (below reviewers) and adding skip-ci label, you can still see CI build result at your branch.

[mshima]

As I've stated in #27289 (comment).

• It's possible to use modularized types in generators, but it cannot change default BaseApplication type.
• BaseApplication type should contain every property since it will be used by blueprints.
• Generator specific type should not inherit ApplicationType.

Others changes looks ok.

[Tcharl]

Blueprints does not use angular properties right? Otherwise, shouldn't they be considered as angular blueprint extension?

I'm not sure of what you're mentioning in the previous sentence: may you please either comment the code or provide a PR + comments on changes on this one to make it really crystal clear?

I definitely thought that leaf application-generator (like angular) could extends application-base with their own Application Type (extending BaseApplication), Entity and even fields extensions.
It made it very clear to read:

• looking for a dedicated blueprint property/method? Go to the /types.d
• looking for a common property: looks the types extended by your own types have in /types.d...

It's possible to use modularized types in generators, but it cannot change default BaseApplication type.

To me base app just contains common application's fields

BaseApplication type should contain every property since it will be used by blueprints.

Blueprint should be able to extend any generator, not only base. Also, there's no real point to get frontend-framework-specific properties (like angularlocale). Blueprint should also be able to create their own flavor of BlueprintApplicationType, extending as much ApplicationType Object they want.

Generator specific type should not inherit ApplicationType.

That was the cornerstone of that PR: to extends BaseApplicationType and BaseEntity why shouldn't?

[Tcharl]

Please explain the rationale of refusal or accept this PR: I'm eager to contribute to the codebase by cleaning this up. Huge improvement like the whitelisting of C vs R vs U vs D at every level, any layer filtering or pivot object between MS need a fully object-oriented, strongly typed and modular approach.

This first PR is here to align a clear practice and standard concepts before applying it on every generators to then being able to scale the project by unlocking a safe, straightforward and standard guideline for contribution.

PR can't be stuck without any comment or remark, I'm available for discussion on any channel, even meet for voice-over.

There are business needs behind the evolution of the platform, and I'm one of the representative of a company that bet on this stack to reach expectations. Ignoring contributors is synonym of either putting users onto pressure or even loosing them, which is the opposite of a sane OSS initiative which should be seeking for both usage and community. I definitely would prefer to contribute to the framework quality to be confident on what I promise to my 200 devs using it on a daily basis which requires these new features (from which modularity and best of breed object oriented approach is a prereq) rather than doing powerpoints to commit the business and managing escalations on a daily basis since this small first step paving the way of the planned improvement is challenged, accepted, scaled and deployed

Best regards

[Tcharl]

OK, much more clear.
I propose to keep the & AngularApplication in basegen temporarily (and deprecate it's use) while modifying angulargenerator as it is in this pr: it will keep retrocompatibility while preparing the shift

[mshima]

getWebappTranslation type needs unification. It deserves an PR only for that.
See #27289 (comment).
I will take care of it.

[mshima]

There are lots o new changes since last review.

• we should not try to refactor. We have @ts-nocheck in some files yet like languages: drop ts-nocheck #27803
• methods should not be added to entity or application if possible to use properties like internal: replace generator method with properties and types adjusts #27807
• BaseApplication should have the full application definition by default.

[Tcharl]

No no, I just touched 2 lines since last review (the 'deprecated-types.ts' file, 'ensure retrocompatibility' commits), I was forced to rebase, and as older commit went in between (and conflict) was forced to merge conflicts

[mshima]

No no, I just touched 2 lines since last review (the 'deprecated-types.ts' file, 'ensure retrocompatibility' commits), I was forced to rebase, and as older commit went in between (and conflict) was forced to merge conflicts

deprecated-types is not right. angularLocaleId was not deprecated.

[Tcharl]

Sure it's not, but the wrapping object is. Let me change the filename

[Tcharl]

Hi @mshima,

Seems that there's no remaining review point to tackle on this one, is it?

Best regards,

[mshima]

Why an additional types files?
I don’t get types-partial.

[Tcharl]

That 'partial' type is made to ensure compatibility with the current implementation (avoid breaking change).
in the end, the goal is to have something like this

So that we'll be able to spot which 'Generator' need which 'Type' leading to:

• Better identifying the impacts of the modification of a type or core logic.
• May be release leaf generators independently (or at least communicate the breaking changes on modules for blueprints, i.e. @generator-jhipster/angular, ...): maybe someone just want to consume 'or a leaf element' .
• Spot the generators to modify when we want to introduce a new feature.
• Respect LISKOV (the LSK)
• Avoid this 100 attributes 'applicationtype' (same for platform, entity and field) with some of them not being useful at all in the generation chain for some topologies (i.e. the 'angularLocale' for react generator...)

[Tcharl]

Review comment fixed (now), sorry for the one I forgot, messed with some other branch locally

[mshima]

We have PartialAngularEntity and AngularEntity now. That's bad.

[Tcharl]

The Partial is here to be decomissionned for next version: while retrocompatiblity won't be needed anymore.

[Tcharl]

Hi @mshima ,

Is it OK now?

[Tcharl]

I've no clue to improve the current PR. Made my best to keep the retrocompat + improving the codebase.
Please merge or provide an alternative so that I can move to the next generator and follow the pattern.

Thanks

[mshima]

In my opinion types are in 'good' shape now.
When an option is added to config, the option will appear in application, in jhipsterConfig, in jhipsterConfigWithDefaults, will be parsed, will be loaded.
I don't plan to do another refactoring in types, since it's working great now.

You should open a new issue explaining the types modularization reimplementation and assign yourself.

[Tcharl]

Thank you for reminding the best practices: I have tendency to forget about them.

done #28235 #28235

Ok now?

Needs new review