feat: adding docusaurus docs project

[amelnytskyi]

What ❔

Adding initial scope of Docusaurus project for testing docs (with examples of tests - more to be added later)

Why ❔

Migrating test documentation to GitHub

Checklist

• PR title corresponds to the body of PR (we generate changelog entries from PRs).
• Tests for the changes have been added / updated.
• Documentation comments have been added / updated.

[github-actions]

Unit Test Results

    4 files    263 suites   10m 48s ⏱️
2 081 tests 2 080 ✅ 1 💤 0 ❌
2 290 runs  2 289 ✅ 1 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit bb17a08.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[github-actions]

API E2E Test Results

207 tests   207 ✅  20s ⏱️
 14 suites    0 💤
  1 files      0 ❌

Results for commit bb17a08.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[github-actions]

Visit the preview URL for this PR (updated for commit bb17a08):

• https://staging-scan-v2--pr164-qa-613-add-docusauru-doj1dw36.web.app
• https://staging-storybook-scan-v2--pr164-qa-613-add-docusauru-kb08f804.web.app

_{(expires Thu, 09 May 2024 11:44:14 GMT)}

_{🔥 via Firebase Hosting GitHub Action 🌎}

_{Sign: e508f9012944951194447cb8885950b451a24403}

[pcheremu]

@amelnytskyi I have fixed package conflicts, now you can fill the documentation.

1. Please update Readme to use npm run build and npm run start instead of yarn
2. I suppose we need remove all demo content from this example
3. In case of an conflict with packages, please let me know. Latest package versions should be build first. The problem was in "react" dependencies.
4. app project has conflicts with node > 18 and contains many outdated packages. As a workaround you can cut it from packages to update required packages (if any) and place app back to packages with running npm install. Make sure that npm run build each time before commit has 0 errors.

[amelnytskyi]

@pcheremu thanks for help - great job!
Next I will proceed with removing obsolete content and adding new cases

[abilevych]

@pcheremu Thanks, well done.

Regarding the review - from my side, it is all right.

The thing is that inside of your changes have been touched the package-lock.json at the root of dev solution (I understand we cannot avoid that), which means we certainly need to get a review from @vasyl-ivanchuk or/and @Romsters.

Guys, can you please take a look at the PR?

[pcheremu]

Thank you,

Regarding the review process testing-docs - this is a template for now, I would ask for review for now only for 2 workflow files and lock file (that I regenerated in the following sequence: testing-docs -> worker -> fetcher -> api -> app). After completing the cleaning and filling the content to Docusaurus it will make sense to check it too. Just fyi.