3944 extend the properties api to better support nested configuration

[soulomoon]

The implementation closely aligns with the original design, extensively incorporating existing code to minimize workload costs. The new API maintains a consistent style with the old API, which remains unchanged.
Features
With new expose stuff:
KeyNamePath -- path to search for properties
definePropertiesProperty -- define nested property
usePropertyByPath -- extract property by path
usePropertyByPathEither -- same as above
usePropertyByPathAction -- action api for usePropertyByPath
HasPropertyByPath -- constraint for using usePropertyByPath like the HasProperty

We can now define properties upon properties to create nested one. And use KeyNamePath to retrieve the property

    nestedPropertiesExample = emptyProperties
        & definePropertiesProperty #parent "parent" (emptyProperties & defineStringProperty #foo "foo" "foo")
        & defineStringProperty #baz "baz" "baz"

    nestedPropertiesExample2 = emptyProperties
        & definePropertiesProperty #parent "parent" (emptyProperties & defineStringProperty #foo "foo" "xxx")
        & defineStringProperty #baz "baz" "baz"

    examplePath1 = SingleKey #baz
    examplePath2 = ConsKeysPath #parent (SingleKey #foo)

To retrieve we can have

usePropertyByPathEither examplePath2 nestedPropertiesExample object

Todo list:

• add key name path
• add usePropertyByPathEither, usePropertyByPath to cope with usage of key name path
• add more test
• add action to use the above

This should close #3944, old api would remains the same.

[soulomoon]

I think this is done. It provide serveral new functions to deal with nested properties(new functions and the use example at the first comment ). Also I've added test for this new api as prof of correctness.
Can you guys take a look if this looking good? @michaelpj @fendor

[fendor]

First, sorry for taking forever to get this reviewed! It is rather difficult code to review :)
Second, thanks for taking care of the Properties module!

I mostly have some small nitpicks, especially regarding the formatting. Could you make sure to add a newline between instance declarations and normalise the formatting a little bit? E.g. ,HasProperty vs , ParsePropertyPath.

Also, a little bit more documentation in the code would be nice, to explain what problem TProperties is supposed to solve.

Otherwise, looks good to go to me!

[fendor]

This doesn't map naturally the JSON type any more, could you add a comment why we want/need this?

[fendor]

Could we perhaps turn tests like these into golden tests? It is difficult to review what's going on here.

[soulomoon]

Thanks for the review @fendor. This indeed is hard to review with all the type level fiddling. I've adjusted the test and add a comment, see if it is better?

[fendor]

LGTM, thanks!