Adds handling of Hierarchy fields to the JournalFormatters

[mereghost]

⚠️ Related WP: OP#59855

The CustomFieldFormatter didn't know how to handle the hierarchy type fields, therefore rendered the incorrect representation of the changes.

Here is a screenshot of the updated behaviour

[Kharonus]

I'd have a single request. :D otherwise: nice finds, and quick fix. Cool!

[Kharonus]

🟡 Let's extract the gem methods to the persistence layer, so, instead of calling self_and_ancestors directly from model, I'd say we introduce a simple method in the service wrapping it, like we did with descendants:

      # Gets all descendant nodes in a tree starting from the item/node.
      # @param item [CustomField::Hierarchy::Item] the node
      # @param include_self [Boolean] flag
      # @return [Success(Array<CustomField::Hierarchy::Item>)]
      def get_descendants(item:, include_self: true)
        if include_self
          Success(item.self_and_descendants)
        else
          Success(item.descendants)
        end
      end

[mereghost]

Hmmm... I don't see the advantage in this case.

We might differ on how we see the Service, tho. I see it as a wrapper to hide the implementation details of the tree from the outside code a mix of wrapper and syntactic sugar over it.

This here is no different of asking the label or short or ID of the record.

[Kharonus]

I'd describe the difference as follows:

The service is the abstraction of the persistence from the domain layer. In this case, you'd be right, finding an item by ID is also a direct access.
(Now the famous) BUT: to be pragmatic, I do not intend to root EVERYTHING through it, but actually everything closure tree related. This way, we could replace the dependency without touching dozens of code files, but just the one.

WDYT?

[mereghost]

I agree with you. In this case, we would need to change the actual model anyway so moot point. =)

[Kharonus]

Yeah, eyes opened now.... The model is actually more on persistence layer, sadly :D Makes no sense, using the service in here, as actually the service is using the model and the closure tree methods on it. So, If we would have imports, we would have a circular dependency even.

You are right, I'm wrong

[Kharonus]

True, convincing argument