New System App Module for easy file systems access

[IceOnly]

Migration of microsoft/ALAppExtensions#23225

Now that we have made several clients Universal code ready.
One of the main problems turned out to be the replacement of the file record and the file object (File.Create, File.Exists).
Some of our customers now use Azure Blob Service from the System app. Others don't have a good internet and now use a local microservice with REST API, others use Azure File Shares.
The problem is that every integration is different. I think many other partners will have the same problem.
To simplify access I have adopted the email module and created new file accounts.
With just one codeunit, a developer can now connect to various file services without having to know how they actually work. The code unit "File System" delviers everything taht is needed.

An additional PR contains three connector apps:
microsoft/ALAppExtensions#23225

This Apps will conenct:

• Azure Blob Storage
• Azure File Share
• SharePoint Online

All three service can be access over one unified interface!

New provider in the future could be:

• a OneDrive Provider
• Third Party file services

An example that shows how simple it is to use the new modules can be found here:
https://github.com/IceOnly/BC_FileSystem_Example

But before I go round the whole thing, I'm interested in whether there is any interest in the module at all.

Here are some Screenshots:

I have decided in favour of some restrictions. Paths must not start with a /. The only supported path separator is /. If services that require a \ are to be connected, this must be translated by the connector app.

These restrictions should ensure that the file service can be exchanged without upgrading data.

[github-actions]

Could not find linked issues in the pull request description. Please make sure the pull request description contains a line that contains 'Fixes #' followed by the issue number being fixed. Use that pattern for every issue you want to link.

[JesperSchulz]

This PR needs some work before the real code review can conducted.

[JesperSchulz]

@IceOnly, those were the wrong app.jsons 😉 You should pull main into your branch, and then you should update your app.jsons to the latest version. Then I hope your code compiles and all tests pass, and if they do, we can merge.

[IceOnly]

@JesperSchulz should be correct now 🙈

[StefanSosic]

Commented stuff for reimplementation.

@JesperSchulz @IceOnly
Due very large number of comments for smaller things, especially spellings, but also some sorting, app.json, I created new PR, from my fork to IceOnly fork.
PR: IceOnly#1

@IceOnly, before reimplementation, review my changes on PR, approve/merge to this branch. Otherwise it would have conflicts and you would do the fixes by yourself 😁

Let's get this rolling into new release 🚀

[IceOnly]

Commented stuff for reimplementation.

@JesperSchulz @IceOnly Due very large number of comments for smaller things, especially spellings, but also some sorting, app.json, I created new PR, from my fork to IceOnly fork. PR: IceOnly#1

@IceOnly, before reimplementation, review my changes on PR, approve/merge to this branch. Otherwise it would have conflicts and you would do the fixes by yourself 😁

Let's get this rolling into new release 🚀

Thank you @StefanSosic!
I acccepted all changes, except the renaming of the codeunit "File Scenario". Renaming it to "File Scenario Mgt." will break the Facade Naming Pattern.

[StefanSosic]

@IceOnly, thank you for the fast addressing of everything! Amazing!!!

@JesperSchulz As agreed, stepped in, all reviewed. From my side green light 🚀

[JesperSchulz]

Let's give this another spin! We're getting there 😎