Uno Platform Compatibility updates

[jeromelaban]

PR Type

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

• Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)

What is the new behavior?

This PR adds a set of forward compatibilty changes to ease the cross-compilation of the community toolkit to Uno Platform targets.

• Partials are needed for code generation
• Use TargetFrameworks instead of TargetFramework to allow for late modification of the platform list

PR Checklist

Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:

• Tested code with current supported SDKs
• Pull Request has been submitted to the documentation repository instructions. Link:
• Sample in sample app has been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)
  • Icon has been created (if new sample) following the Thumbnail Style Guide and templates
• New major technical changes in the toolkit have or will be added to the Wiki e.g. build changes, source generators, testing infrastructure, sample creation changes, etc...
• Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features) (if applicable)
• Header has been added to all new source files (run build/UpdateHeaders.bat)
• Contains NO breaking changes

Other information

[ghost]

Thanks jeromelaban for opening a Pull Request! The reviewers will test the PR and highlight if there is any conflict or changes required. If the PR is approved we will proceed to merge the pull request 🙌

[michael-hawker]

LGTM. FYI @Sergio0694 for the new Animations stuff and @RosarioPulella for the new Controls split.

[michael-hawker]

@jeromelaban any reason this was opened as a draft in particular?

[jeromelaban]

@jeromelaban any reason this was opened as a draft in particular?

It was until I got the build passing :) It now is. Thanks for the review!

[Sergio0694]

Looks good to me 😄
Great to see some work towards unifying the codebase with Uno Platform! 🎉

Question: do we want to hold this off until #3639 is merged, since that completely rewrites the Microsoft.Toolkit.Uwp.UI.Animations package and hence would require the same changes applied to it too, or do we just want to merge this in the meantime and then manually do the same tweaks in there? 🤔

[jeromelaban]

We're happy to contribute and make the toolkit even greater 🙂

This PR mainly reduces the number of partials to be merged, and it is expected that it'll be needed to add some more over time when Uno will make more steps toward being mergeable.

There is no need to consider adding partials blindly at this point, as far as the current master is concerned.

[michael-hawker]

@Sergio0694 think we can just merge this now? We'll have a few things to sort out but merge conflicts should hopefully be pretty self-explanatory?

[jeromelaban]

Thanks @RosarioPulella for the update, I indeed missed this one ;)

[Rosuavio]

@jeromelaban, I noticed this in progress tag on this PR, is it ready?

[jeromelaban]

@RosarioPulella it's not a tag I can manage, it was added automatically by the msftbot. This is PR is ready from my side.

[ghost]

Hello @RosarioPulella!

Because this pull request has the auto merge :zap: label, I will be glad to assist with helping to merge this pull request once all check-in policies pass.

p.s. you can customize the way I help with merging this pull request, such as holding this pull request until a specific person approves. Simply @mention me (@msftbot) and give me an instruction to get started! Learn more here.