feat: add onComponentSelected callback function and componentPickerMode types [FC-0062]

[rpenido]

Description

This PR refactors the ComponentPicker and adds the multiple-select feature to be used in openedx/edx-platform#35679 and #1173.

More information

• Part of:
  • Collections Page - Add existing content from within a collection #1173

Testing instructions

• This can be tested changing this following line from 'single' to 'multiple' and opening http://apps.local.edly.io:2001/course-authoring/component-picker

---

Private ref: FAL-3901}

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @rpenido!

What's next?

Please work through the following steps to get your changes ready for engineering review:

🔘 Get product approval

If you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.

• If it does, you'll need to submit a product proposal for your contribution, and have it reviewed by the Product Working Group.
  • This process (including the steps you'll need to take) is documented here.
• If it doesn't, simply proceed with the next step.

🔘 Provide context

To help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:

• Dependencies

  This PR must be merged before / after / at the same time as ...

• Blockers

  This PR is waiting for OEP-1234 to be accepted.

• Timeline information

  This PR must be merged by XX date because ...

• Partner information

  This is for a course on edx.org.

• Supporting documentation
• Relevant Open edX discussion forum threads

🔘 Get a green build

If one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green.

🔘 Let us know that your PR is ready for review:

Who will review my changes?

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/2u-tnl. Tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for review.

Where can I find more information?

If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:

• Overview of Review Process for Community Contributions
• Pull Request Status Guide
• Making changes to your pull request

When can I expect my changes to be merged?

Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible.

However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:

• The size and impact of the changes that it introduces
• The need for product review
• Maintenance status of the parent repository

💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.78049% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 93.15%. Comparing base (8c8d911) to head (e755b62).
Report is 43 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ary-authoring/component-picker/ComponentPicker.tsx	91.66%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1417      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.13%   93.15%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1051     1051              
  Lines       20262    20328      +66     
  Branches     4328     4346      +18     
==========================================
+ Hits        18871    18936      +65     
- Misses       1328     1329       +1     
  Partials       63       63              

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

[rpenido]

The type change is not very pretty on this side, but I think it is beneficial, as we add many related states in the context. It makes things safer using the useLibraryContext hook on the components side.

i.e

  const {
    componentPickerMode,
    onComponentSelected,
    addComponentToSelectedComponents,
    removeComponentFromSelectedComponents,
  } = useLibraryContext();

  if (!componentPickerMode) {
    // ❌ This throws a type error
    addComponentToSelectedComponents({ usageKey: 'blockId', blockType: 'blockType' });
  };

  if (componentPickerMode === 'single') {
    // ❌ This throws a type error
    addComponentToSelectedComponents({ usageKey: 'blockId', blockType: 'blockType' });
  };

  if (componentPickerMode === 'multiple') {
    // ✅ This works
    addComponentToSelectedComponents({ usageKey: 'blockId', blockType: 'blockType' });
  };

[bradenmacdonald]

I think that's nice. But I think we will soon need to split up LibraryContext because it's getting too big and messy. We can instead have LibraryContext, SidebarContext, and ComponentPickerContext, and it will clean up our tests a lot too. The SidebarContext, and ComponentPickerContext can both have defaults so they don't always have to be present in order to read their values. (e.g. isSidebarOpen can just be false in the default context, even if there's no SidebarContextProvider available)

[bradenmacdonald]

OK I pushed a few lines of code that I need for the legacy UI multi-select. I also made a note that we need to stop putting so much stuff into LibraryContext. It's become a messy "everything" provider. Instead, we need to split it up into SidebarContext, ComponentSelectorContext, etc. But that can come later, after the Sumac cut and bugfixes. For now we need to get this merged.