[NAE-1646] Overridable data field render in PDF generator

[renczesstefan]

Description

Implement possibility of overriding rendering of fields in PDF form.

Implements NAE-1646

Dependencies

No new dependencies were introduced.

Third party dependencies

No new dependencies were introduced.

Blocking Pull requests

There are no dependencies on other PR.

How Has Been This Tested?

This was tested manually.

Test Configuration

Name	Tested on
OS	macOS Monterey 12.2.1
Runtime	Java 11
Dependency Manager	Maven 3.8.4
Framework version	Spring Boot 2.6.2
Run parameters
Other configuration

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• My changes have been checked, personally or remotely, with @mladoniczky
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have resolved all conflicts with the target branch of the PR
• I have updated and synced my code with the target branch
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing tests pass locally with my changes:
  • Lint test
  • Unit tests
  • Integration tests
• I have checked my contribution with code analysis tools:
  • SonarCloud
  • Snyk
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation:
  • Developer documentation
  • User Guides
  • Migration Guides

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 44 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +25 -19
Percentile : 17.6%

Total files changed: 4

Change summary by file extension:
.java : +25 -19

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

• Fast and predictable releases to production:
  • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
    iterations.
  • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
• Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
  • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
  • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detetcted.
• Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
  • Small portions can be assimilated better.
• Better engineering practices are exercised:
  • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
  • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

• Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
  • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
  • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
• Change your engineering behaviors
  • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
    • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
    • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

• One line was added: +1 -0
• One line was deleted: +0 -1
• One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
  interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
• Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
  of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

---

Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

[sonarcloud]

SonarCloud Quality Gate failed.   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

11.1% Coverage
0.0% Duplication

[renczesstefan]

SonarCloud Quality Gate failed.   

0 Bugs 0 Vulnerabilities 0 Security Hotspots 0 Code Smells

11.1% Coverage 0.0% Duplication

The covarege fails because of PDF generator is tested via unit tests as a whole service.