chore(frontend): remove spec-only PresetService members

[aglinxinyuan]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Removes three PresetService members that no production code calls: updateOrCreatePreset, isValidNewOperatorPreset, and the exported PresetDictionary type. Pure deletion, no behaviour change: −175 lines.

History

Introduced by	#1164 (2022-01-13) — "Add PresetService (User Presets Step 3)", which built out the preset API surface
Usage removed by	never wired up — no production file has ever called updateOrCreatePreset or isValidNewOperatorPreset, and PresetDictionary has zero references worktree-wide. Only the service's own spec exercises them

Reviewer note: the wired-up half of the service stays — savePresets, getPresets, applyPreset, isValidOperatorPreset, isValidPreset and the Ajv type guards all keep live consumers. common/formly/preset-wrapper/** calls none of the removed three (checked line by line in both the .ts and the .html). Note isValidOperatorPreset (live) and isValidNewOperatorPreset (removed) differ by one word — only the latter goes.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #8611

How was this PR tested?

Existing tests only — this PR removes methods and the spec blocks that covered them.

From frontend/:

• npx ng test --watch=false --include='**/preset.service.spec.ts' — 48 tests pass.
• yarn --cwd frontend format:ci — clean.

Verification, re-runnable by a reviewer:

git grep -n "updateOrCreatePreset\|isValidNewOperatorPreset\|PresetDictionary"
git grep -n isValidOperatorPreset    # the live sibling, untouched

Was this PR authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?

Generated-by: Claude Code (Claude Opus 5)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

[github-actions]

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

Based on the git blame history of the changed files, we recommend the following reviewers:

• No candidates found from git blame history.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 92.78%. Comparing base (957b6c9) to head (05c59cb).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #8614      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     92.78%   92.78%   -0.01%     
  Complexity     4902     4902              
============================================
  Files          1236     1236              
  Lines         52165    52149      -16     
  Branches       6411     6404       -7     
============================================
- Hits          48402    48386      -16     
  Misses         2191     2191              
  Partials       1572     1572              

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	71.78% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 957b6c9
agent-service	99.16% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 957b6c9
amber	88.63% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 957b6c9
computing-unit-managing-service	55.20% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 957b6c9
config-service	87.37% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 957b6c9
file-service	81.53% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 957b6c9
frontend	96.58% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
notebook-migration-service	83.73% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 957b6c9
pyamber	98.48% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 957b6c9
workflow-compiling-service	74.09% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 957b6c9

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.