refactor: use frontend-component-header, move away from old studio styles

[brian-smith-tcril]

this PR has all the changes from #69

the differences are:

• the commits are squashed (the WIP pr has a lot of unhelpful commit messages, as well as commits that aren't at working stages)
• the package.json points to the frontend-component-header from npm instead of from my fork

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 49.07% // Head: 48.61% // Decreases project coverage by -0.45% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (8176c31) compared to base (a640562).
Patch coverage: 54.54% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

❗ Current head 8176c31 differs from pull request most recent head 2814965. Consider uploading reports for the commit 2814965 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #74      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   49.07%   48.61%   -0.46%     
==========================================
  Files          76       76              
  Lines        1997     1989       -8     
  Branches      373      367       -6     
==========================================
- Hits          980      967      -13     
- Misses        983      988       +5     
  Partials       34       34              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/index.jsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
src/library-authoring/author-library/messages.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/library-authoring/common/LicenseField.jsx	25.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...thoring/configure-library/LibraryConfigurePage.jsx	3.44% <0.00%> (ø)
...y-authoring/course-import/CourseImportListItem.jsx	92.30% <ø> (ø)
.../library-authoring/edit-block/LibraryBlockPage.jsx	3.15% <0.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
...ary-authoring/library-access/LibraryAccessPage.jsx	11.32% <0.00%> (+0.60%)	⬆️
...ibrary-authoring/studio-header-wrapper/messages.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...ring/studio-header-wrapper/StudioHeaderWrapper.jsx	30.00% <30.00%> (ø)
...horing/studio-header-wrapper/ContentTitleBlock.jsx	50.00% <50.00%> (ø)
... and 7 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[brian-smith-tcril]

@arbrandes i'm not sure how to test this. i'll gladly bring back the buttons and uncomment these tests once i know how to set up a library to have LTI stuff

[arbrandes]

Let's push the LTI stuff back until the rest is done - maybe even further. It requires backend fixes before we can revisit the frontend properly.

[arbrandes]

@brian-smith-tcril, tested it, and it (still) works great! Can you please rebase on master?

Also, it would be great if we didn't have to merge with a failing codecov/project. I know, it's just a -0.46% diff at time of writing, but it wouldn't be a great example to set. (There's a separate issue in the spring cleaning checklist for tests, so we could think of this as a start-off point.)

[brian-smith-tcril]

@arbrandes this is ready for eyes again

i updated the header PR and created a testing branch that updates the package.json to point to a branch of the forked header with dist checked in

[arbrandes]

@brian-smith-tcril, merged the frontend-component-header PR. Tested it in the process of testing this (via your test branch). Looks great! Let me know if we can merge it as is, or if we need a version bump for frontend-component-header.

[brian-smith-tcril]

@arbrandes a version bump on the header repo would be ideal. just for peace of mind i'd like to verify everything is working in the code we're about to merge before hitting the button