Fixing Error in Hds::Flyout & Hds::Modal subcomponents

[zamoore]

📌 Summary

Fixes an error in the deprecated HdsDialogPrimitive::Header/Body/Description/Footer components as well as the Hds::Modal::Body component. Passes args from constructor call to super within constructor.

🛠️ Detailed description

I discovered an error caused by the recent TS conversion. When we converted the Hds::Flyout::Body component, we incorrectly passed {} as the args argument to super in the constructor, when we should use the argument that is passed from the constructor. To make that clearer, here's an example:

Code causing error:

export interface Signature {
  Blocks: {
    default: [];
  };
  Element: HTMLDivElement;
}

export default class MyComponent extends Component<Signature> {
  constructor(owner: unknown) {
    // object is passed to super, args not utilized from constructor
    super(owner, {});
  }
}

Should be

export interface Signature {
  Blocks: {
    default: [];
  };
  Element: HTMLDivElement;
}

export default class MyComponent extends Component<Signature> {
  constructor(owner: unknown, args: Record<string, never>) {
    super(owner, args);
  }
}

🔗 External links

Slack discussion

---

💬 Please consider using conventional comments when reviewing this PR.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
hds-showcase	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	Oct 21, 2024 7:40pm
hds-website	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	Oct 21, 2024 7:40pm

[didoo]

Left a minor suggestion (feel free to ignore or edit as you see fit).

[alex-ju]

the constructor changes look good. the signature adjustments in flyout/modal subcomponents (the deprecated body, description, footer, header) are not needed. the contextualClasses are only used on the dialog-primitive subcomponents

[didoo]

[question] as a pattern, do we prefer to have Args completely missing (I think I have done something like this, recently), or Args: never like here? which one is more "correct™"?

/cc @alex-ju

[didoo]

Or is it because below we need to have a HdsFlyoutBodySignature['Args']?

[alex-ju]

[question] as a pattern, do we prefer to have Args completely missing (I think I have done something like this, recently), or Args: never like here? which one is more "correct™"?

not having Args is the established pattern. however, considering the error we encounter in HCP for this subcomponent, I don't see a way of avoiding never.

we could use never straight in the constructor, but we have this pattern of using the signature in constructors, so what we have in this PR feels more consistent.

constructor(owner: unknown, args: never) {

[didoo]

not having Args is the established pattern

@alex-ju Good. So nothing to change on my side :)

however, considering the error we encounter in HCP for this subcomponent, I don't see a way of avoiding never.

@alex-ju @zamoore since this is a deviation from the pattern, should we add a comment above these Args: never are not following the established pattern? (and potentially have also a link to this thread, for future reference)

[alex-ju]

The changelog would need to be updated, as we're not making any changes to the DialogPrimitive and there are no missing arguments anymore.