We Keep Coding

.Net 6 Clean Architecture Why does the WebApi reference Infrastructure?

So I started reading about Clean Architecture, and so far I can see that the whole purpose of an architectural design like this is to separate concerns, parts of the application in order to make bigger future changes like switching to a different ORM easier.
From the articles I've read, it seems like the WebAPI project of the solution should have a reference to the Application and Infrastructure layers. I get why we need a reference to the Application layer, but what about Infrastructure?
This is making the WebAPI layer, which is essentially the entry point of the application, depend on the Infrastructure layer, which leads to a tightly coupled situation (at least in my head)
Can you please help me understand the reason behind this? What happens if you make changes to the infrastructure layer. In this case it would possibly break the whole application, because the entry point is broken, wouldn't it?

By general rule of thumb, all of the registration of the modules (not services) is done in the presentation layer.
For example:
// Add services to the container.
builder.Services.AddApplicationServices();
builder.Services.AddInfrastructureServices(builder.Configuration);
builder.Services.AddWebUIServices();
This is done because the presentation has its own extra layers, like logging, configuration, error handling and more that should be registered in the presentation layer because it depends on the asp framework itself rather than any other third party libraries.
So technically you don't want your infrastructure to be dependant on the fact that its an asp dotnet core project and thats why we try to register the framework related things inside of the presentation layer.
If you really want to you can make it so the infrastructure is registered in the application service registration and that is fine but it kills the whole idea that all the modules would be registered in one single place.
Additionally, you sometimes have infrastructure implementations that are only dependant on the web api itself. For example, lets say you have an interface called ICurrentUserService, one of its implementations would be HttpCurrentUserService when you are sending a request and this service would be in the presentation layer because IHttpContextAccessor is only registered on the presentation layer. Alternatively you can have a different implementation of the service when you aren't coming from an HTTP request and that service would be registered in the infrastructure layer.
Here is an example of this service I am talking about:
https://github.com/jasontaylordev/CleanArchitecture/blob/main/src/WebUI/Services/CurrentUserService.cs
What happens if you make changes to the infrastructure layer. In this case
it would possibly break the whole application, because the entry point is broken, wouldn't it?
Doesn't really make sense, if the infrastructure won't compile obviously the project doesn't work. The infrastructure only holds implementation and if some of these implementations are broken it doesn't mean the whole app dies.

I have Domain Driven Design Concerns on my VS project

I am dealing with some architectural design concerns that is needed to be sorted out. My current architecture can be seen below. Each box is a project in visual studio, and they together forms solution.
My Core application is coded in WestCore.AppCore Context, and I have another project group called CSBINS (which includes system web service integrations) CSBINS is an merchant product that is why I found it better to seperate it to another project and only depend it with most commonly used interfaces from WestCore.AppCore.
Right now WestCore.Api does not have any logic in it. All the application logic is handled inside AppCore and AppCore.Csbins
The Problem is I sometimes have need to use WestCore.AppCore.Csbins services inside WestCore.AppCore which causes cross referencing issue.
the best approach right now that I think is to add Endpoint Services into WestCore.Api and move cross platform logic to Endpoint Services.
However I would like to get suggestions and design concerns about going further on this since I am very sure that there would be many design choices.
I am also considering to move common AppCore Interfaces and Classes to WestCore.AppCore.Common so that I wont need to reference whole WestCore.AppCore project to WestCore.AppCore.Csbins.

Why are you using services inside other services - this is probably a bad thing and needs refactoring.
Those CORE projects look like are application services projects, it might help calling them 'WestCore.ApplicationServices', Core implies it belongs at the domain level.
It sounds like you need to impliment an anti corruption layer to integrate with the 3rd party vendor rather than creating a whole new 'domain' context. This should be as straightforward as degining an interface in your domain layer (personally I use the *Gateway suffix to identifiy interfaces that interact with external systems)
Not knowing anything about your domain I would probably start with something that looks like this: (I've assumed the csbins is some sort of payment or accounting gateway)
Also, I would strongly recommend avoiding "Common" and "Shared" libraries at the domain level, you shouldn't need them. Your interfaces and classes are DOMAIN objects and belong in your DOMAIN library. The Application Services should be using domain models directly and having implementation of domain interfaces supplied via Dependency Injection. Hopefully your Domain Models are fleshed out enough that your application service classes are just orchestration wrappers.

Should I separate IoC binding seperation by project

I am new at domain driven design architecture. My project solution is like this:
Presentation(Web)
ApplicationLayer
QueryLayer
QueryHandlerLayer
DataLayer
I read from articles theese separations is doing to isolate jobs.
Presentation project references ApplicationLayer
But does not reference QueryLayer,QueryHandlerLayer and DataLayer.
But I am using IoC container and bind types to interface.
container.Bind(data interfaces).To(data classes);
container.Bind(query interfaces).To(query classes);
I can do this on PresentationLayer. But now all projects will be add reference to presentation layer.
Is this an issue about architecture? Or May I separated IoC container binding for all layers?

Using DI is about composing applications. An application might have multiple layers, but they are still part of the same application and must be composed together.
The appropriate place to compose an application is in the composition root, which should be as close to the entry point of the application as possible.
There are basically 3 common recommendations for composing applications with multiple layers, and all of them are perfectly acceptable.
Don't separate the layers into physical assemblies.
Compose the application in the presentation layer, and reference all other layers from the presentation layer.
Create a separate composition layer that references all of the other layers.
For the 3rd option, you should keep in mind that the composition layer is supposed to drive, not be driven by, the rest of the application.
See this answer for the reasoning behind this referencing and why it is important that you do reference every library from the composition root to avoid tight coupling. Or, as mentioned, you could use late binding to compose your application without referencing the assemblies directly, provided your deployment script copies over the DLLs.

I think the biggest thing I have learnt in recent usage is that at the fundamental level, DI is about Injecting Dependancies. That's a pretty redundant description, so let me elaborate:
DI starts with design. Everything should have what it needs provided to it via a constructor, or factory of some sort. This is where Interfaces are your best friend. Once you have done this, most of the work is done. Assuming some of the projects are shared, you have now delegated out all of the work to whoever is using it. This is probably old news, however.
Next, if you are in control of the container, consider creating a default module, which in the case of Ninject is a, NinjectModule. Create one of these for each application layer. This will form the "instructions" so to speak, for the container at the highest level of your program to put all the pieces together.
This can all be loaded by reflection trickery of which there is plenty of information around, like this.
Then it is as simple as loading all of these binding "instruction manuals" into the composition root (usually in the application) and you're good to go.

Need Architectural Advice for Large scale .Net MVC Project

I will try to explain in as much detail as possible. There may be similar questions here on SO and I've gone through all of those but none of those have what I needed.
So, I'm starting out with a large scale C# MVC5 based Web Project and I want to organize everything in as much decoupled way as possible. For the database part I'm going to use Data Access ORM from Telerik (Previously known as Open Access) because I will be using MySQL for my project.
So far I have organized everything as below. I have defined solution level folders to divide the projects because I think there may be a possibility to have more projects in one layer in future.
**Solution**: td
- Business (Folder)
-- td.core (Project) (Contains Services and ViewModels)
-- td.interfaces (Project)
- Data (Folder)
-- td.data (Project) (Contains Database Models i.e. Telerik, Repository, Context Factory and Unit of Work class)
- Presentation (Folder)
-- td.ui (Project) (MVC5 Project, also Implemented IoC here)
- Shared (Folder)
-- td.common (Project)
Generally, when you bind models in your MVC project, if you have just one project in your solution, it works pretty easily without an issue.
i.e. in a MVC Controller
var obj = new TempClass();
return View(obj.getAllUsers());
and then in the corresponding view you use this at the top
#model (model type here)
When I separate all these layers in their own projects as mentioned above. The data layer would be the one directly communicating with the database hence I will generate the Telerik Data Access rlinq schema in my Data node where it will also generate the classes for the tables in my database (Default config)
Now, from the setup above, from the controller I'm supposed to call the Business layer to fetch the data and which will communicate with the Data node.
The question is that in the controller and in the view I will need the data types / references of the model I'm binding to. So, should I keep my automatically generated classes still in the Data node or can I move ONLY the generated classes to the Shared Node and then use those for the binding in the Controller/View? Which one is going to be a good practice? as I don't want to reference the Data nodes directly in the controller otherwise there is no point in separating everything like above.
Another quick question. I would be integrating so many third party APIs via REST/SOAP. In which layer should these best fit?
If anyone has any other Architectural suggestion or something that I'm missing here, please do suggest.
Thanks in advance everyone.
UPDATE!!!
Please see my updated architecture above.
Here's what I did so far.
I have added Repositories, Services and IoC.
In my Global.asax, I'm initializing the IoC which configures the Services etc for me.
My controller has an overloaded constructor now having the service from the business layer as the parameter.
Controller calls the service to get the data and the service calls the repository for it.
I have followed the generic repository path instead of creating repositories manually for each type
For 3rd party APIs, I will use the data layer and business later won't know where the data came from. It just needs to ask what it needs.
All this was made easier with the help of a dedicated Interfaces project which is being referenced from both the Business and Data layers when needed. Because as both want to implement abc interface I cannot declare it in either Business or Data layer since there would be circular referencing then which prevents me to reference both (Business/Data) projects to each other.
So, with the help of above changes, I can easily do what I want now and Everything is working perfectly as I want. Now the last question I have is
Is there any flaw in this architecture?

For a domain-centric architecture where it's easy to add another type of UI or change persistence technology and where business classes are easily testable in isolation, here's what I'd do :
Business layer with no dependencies. Defines business types and operations.
Data layer with data access objects/repositories that map from database to business types. You can also put your third party API accessors and adapters here. Depends on Business layer where repository interfaces are declared.
No Shared layer. Business types are the basic "currency" that flows through your system.
UI layer depending on the data access interfaces declared in the Business, but not on the Data layer. To decouple UI further, you can introduce an additional UI-agnostic Application layer.
You can read more about this at Onion Architecture or Hexagonal Architecture.
As it is, your architecture is pretty much data-driven (or Telerik Data driven) since the business and UI layers are tightly coupled to the Telerik schema. There's nothing wrong with that, but as I said in my comment, it enables other things such as quick development from an existing database schema, over full domain decoupling, framework agnosticism and testability.
Whether your Telerik generated model lives in the Data or Shared module makes little difference in that scenario IMO. It is still the reference model throughout your application and your controllers will be coupled to it anyway. The only thing I would advise against is moving the generated files manually - if it can be automated all the way, definitely do it or don't move the files at all.

I'm nether an expert for your special technologies, nor would I regard this as the ultimate answer, but I give you some hint's of the possibilities you may have (depending on your technologies):
Business should have exclusive access to data
Currently I don't really get, why your controller and view need access to any data-base related stuff at all? Shouldn't your business layer handle all of that and hide it from controller and view? But let's assume it's necessary for some reason.
Ways to split the data layer
You shouldn't move generated classes manually. You could change your generation-settings, to generate them elsewhere partially. But manually cherry-picking and moving them, results in an architecture which is hard to maintain.
The cleaner solution would be, if you can change the visibility of your classes. Can you generate classes with project or folder visibility instead? Or can you only export defined packages or classes in the project settings?
A workaround which requires more maintenance is the local extension. You could create new classes in your shared folder, which derive from the data layer classes.
Stucturing external APIs
Give them one or more own projects, so they are easier to change later. I know approaches where you have one main folder for each API. This makes each of them easy to change, but clutters your workspace. The important project will only be 4 out of 1000 projects. I normally prefer one folder containing all APIs. Thus the APIs are slightly harder to change, but your workspace stays clean. Your decision depends on two facts: how often do you change, add, remove or just study the APIs. And does your IDE provide a way to "hide" folders/projects from your workspace.
Hope this helps a little :)

Can I register all IoC container components in single layer, or each layer where used?

I'm using the Unity IoC framework and have a Bootstrapper.cs class in my host MVC layer to register all components. However in my architecture I have a 'services' layer below the MVC layer, that too uses DI and there are repository interfaces injected into it (repository interfaces are not used in the MVC layer - it has the services layer Interface injected into its Controllers).
So my question is the following: can I still register the repository interface to it's concrete type in the MVC/UI layer for the entire app, or do I add another reference to Unity and create another Bootstrapper.cs class in my 'services' layer to define Interface types for that that specific layer uses?
Even if the answer is I can register the Interface in the UI layer, I'd still like to know the common practice too. The thing I don't like about registering that type in the MVC/UI layer is I would have to add a reference to the Repository layer just to make the registration, even know it is not used in that layer. It's used in the services layer.
Thanks!

Each application should have its own Composition Root, the place where you configure the application (see this answer for details).
It depends on the context, but generally speaking, if you split your container configuration among the layers you are going to make decisions about the configuration of your layers too close to the layers and you'are likely to lose the general view.
For example, in one of your business logic layers you'are registering a service:
container.RegisterType<ISercice1, MyImplementation1>(new PerThreadLifetime())
But when using that layer in a web application you could decide that a PerSession or PerRequest lifetime would be better lifetimes. This decisions should be in only one place and not spread through the layers.

I turn your question on its head.
If you add a reference to Unity in your class libraries, you would have added dependencies to the framework you are using. That is quite the opposite of what you are trying to achieve.
The only adaptation your classes should need is to support constructors or using public properties - on interfaces. That's it!
So your application entry point should do all the 'bootstrapping'.
Note that a entry point could be different applications, as well as different test projects. They could have different configurations and mocking scenarios.
If your bootstrap.cs gets large, you could split it up into smaller parts for readability reasons. But I reject the idea of classes having any knowledge about the fact that they are being bootstrapped/moqed/injected and by what.
Consider re-use. Your current libraries is using Unity. They may be used in a project using StructureMap. Or why not Ninject.

In short, yes it is possible to keep the configuration at the top of the process or localized to each module. However, all dependencies must be resolved for the entire object graph in the process.
Localizing the configuration by keeping it in each module (assembly) is often a good idea because you are allowing your service layer to take responsibility for its own configuration. My answer to this question, IMHO, is a good practice.

Yes, application should have one composition root at entry point. But it can be a good practice to keep registrations of a classes inside a layer where they are implemented. Then pull these registrations from layers at composition root, registering implementations layer by layer. This is why:
Registration within layer can be redefined in other place, for
example at entry point. Most of IoC libraries work in such a way
that registration done later erases the registration done earlier.
So registration within layer defines just a default behavior which
can be easily overridden.
You don't need to reference IoC library in all your projects\layers, even if you have registrations defined inside these
layers. A very simple set of wrapper classes will allow you to
abstract away from IoC specifics anywhere except your entry point.
When your application has several entry points, reusable registration will greatly help to prevent repeating the same
registration. This copy\paste is always bad. And applications have
several entry points quite often. For example, consider the scenario
of cross-platform application having a separate entry point for
every platform it targets. Or business logic reused in web site and
in background process.
With reusable registration, you can build a very effective testing system. You will be able to run a whole layer from tests,
mock whole layers in automated way, and do it very effectively,
minimizing efforts on writing tests.
See my blog article illustrating these points in more detail, with a working sample.