CIF-1220: Fix CQBP-84 violation for Venia Reference

[hbacila]

Description

Remove @ProviderType annotation if the interface is implemented / extended by custom code.
This fixes CM code quality reported issue:

../commerceinternalstageprogram/core/models/commerce/MyProductTeaser.java: The product interface com.adobe.cq.commerce.core.components.models.productteaser.ProductTeaser annotated with @ProviderType should not be implemented by custom code.

Related Issue

https://jira.corp.adobe.com/browse/CIF-1220

Motivation and Context

Custom component models should not implement / extend core component interfaces annotated with @ProviderType to avoid breaking changes in core interface.

How Has This Been Tested?

• a SNAPSHOT package with the fix was created and added to in-project maven repo in the reference app at https://git.cloudmanager.adobe.com/stage-commerceinternalstage/CommerceInternalStageProgram-p10603/ (branch horea)
• new Non-Production pipeline created for Code Quality only using the branch horea
• pipeline execution https://experience-stage.adobe.com/#/@commerceinternalstage/cloud-manager/pipelineexecution.html/program/10603/pipeline/37602/execution/17754 shows the issue is fixed

Screenshots (if appropriate):

Types of changes

• [ x] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist:

• [x ] I have signed the Adobe Open Source CLA.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• [x ] I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• [x ] I have added tests to cover my changes and the overall coverage did not decrease.
• All unit tests pass on CircleCi.
• [x ] I ran all tests locally and they pass.

[cjelger]

The @ProviderType is actually set on all the Sling models, shouldn't we remove this in all the models? Customers might extend other components, the product teaser is just an example. We should check how this is done in the WCM core components, I checked a few and they had either @ConsumerType or nothing (which defaults to consumer type). WDYT?

[hbacila]

I think we should remove @ProviderType for all models unless we decide which ones should be "final" (if any). Indeed the WCM core components models are all @ConsumerType (explicit or implicit)

[mhaack]

+1 for @ConsumerType and align with WCM core components

[hbacila]

Removed @ProviderType annotations from all component models.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #261 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master     #261   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     62.32%   62.32%           
  Complexity      728      728           
=========================================
  Files           171      171           
  Lines          5240     5240           
  Branches        820      820           
=========================================
  Hits           3266     3266           
  Misses         1862     1862           
  Partials        112      112           

Flag	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
#jest	40.21% <ø> (ø)	0.00 <ø> (ø)
#karma	94.88% <ø> (ø)	0.00 <ø> (ø)
#unittests	84.82% <ø> (ø)	728.00 <ø> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 2c6604c...5b8fd3b. Read the comment docs.