Adding additional document collection properties to align model with item response

[AndyButland]

This PR adds the IsTrashed and IsProtected fields to the document collection result, aligning with the document item result.

IsTrashed was straightforward, we just needed to update the mapping.
IsProtected is a little more tricky, as we have to make a call via the IPublicAccessService to get the result.

I've actually implemented this twice when you look through the commits. Neither I'm totally happy with but I can't find a better way.

First I did the work in the controller (see this commit), but this didn't feel right. Meant having to unpack the IActionResult to get at the object being returned to manipulate it.

So I ended with pushing this up the mapping layer, which is the right place, but requires injecting the IPublicAccessService into DocumentMapDefinition. Maybe that's OK, but I don't see we inject services into the mapping definitions in other cases.

So needs a second opinion.

To test just pull up the management API via Swagger and test the /umbraco/management/api/v1/collection/document/ endpoint to verify it returns these two new properties.

[nikolajlauridsen]

Good instinct 😄

With the new management API, we try to keep the mappers for only mapping properties from one object to another, so there is no additional population from various services 😄 This is because mapping should be a "cheap" operation; however, this was not always the case in the old backoffice.

What we do instead now is create a factory when we need to populate values from services, you can see examples of this in the Umbraco.Cms.Api.Management.Factories; namespace. This is a bit complicated in this case because it's all tangled up in inheritance. In my opinion, the best way to resolve this would be to create a DocumentCollectionPresentationFactory and move the logic from the inherited CollectionResult method (minus the creation of PagedViewModel and IActionResult) into there, along with the population of IsProtected, and break that aspect of the inheritance. I'm not too fuzzed about the last part however, so I'll let that be up to you, but I think we should avoid using the services in the mapper 😄

[AndyButland]

Thanks @nikolajlauridsen - agreed. I could tell it was a code smell but I couldn't see the best way forward. I'll have a look at what you suggest.

[AndyButland]

OK @nikolajlauridsen, I've refactored now as per your suggestion.

[nikolajlauridsen]

Looks great and tests good 👍