fix(text-field): put foundation on state and do render input unless foundation is present

[moog16]

fixes #303

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #353 into master will increase coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 93.75%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #353      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.86%   96.86%   +<.01%     
==========================================
  Files          51       51              
  Lines        1816     1820       +4     
  Branches      210      211       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits         1759     1763       +4     
  Misses         57       57

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
packages/text-field/index.js	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
packages/text-field/Input.js	95.06% <87.5%> (+0.06%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 36469f7...f23819c. Read the comment docs.

[bonniezhou]

What's the purpose of moving the foundation to state? Semantically foundation seems more like a variable that needs to be initialized rather than one that holds state or can be changed throughout the component's life cycle

[moog16]

Well the inner components of a component will be initialized first. In this case, text field initializes before it considers itself "mounted". So the 's componentDidMount is called before text field's componentDidMount. relies on the foundation existing, which only happens after the text field's componentDidMount.

So by adding foundation to state, we can guarantee that the will always have a foundation.

[bonniezhou]

Clarification for posterity: foundation is moved to state so that Text Field's componentDidMount will trigger a re-render through setState after initializing the foundation

[googlebot]

So there's good news and bad news.

👍 The good news is that everyone that needs to sign a CLA (the pull request submitter and all commit authors) have done so. Everything is all good there.

😕 The bad news is that it appears that one or more commits were authored or co-authored by someone other than the pull request submitter. We need to confirm that all authors are ok with their commits being contributed to this project. Please have them confirm that here in the pull request.

Note to project maintainer: This is a terminal state, meaning the cla/google commit status will not change from this state. It's up to you to confirm consent of all the commit author(s), set the cla label to yes (if enabled on your project), and then merge this pull request when appropriate.

[moog16]

Test passing, but CLA is not passing because I accidentally merged @TroyTae's commits into this branch. I reverted, so will just merge into master.