feat: upgrade frontend platform to version 3

[leangseu-edx]

BREAKING CHANGE:

• No longer support @edx/frontend-platform@^2.0.0

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 81.25% // Head: 81.25% // No change to project coverage 👍

Coverage data is based on head (ec60b0c) compared to base (b06c8b5).
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #241   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   81.25%   81.25%           
=======================================
  Files           4        4           
  Lines          32       32           
  Branches        4        4           
=======================================
  Hits           26       26           
  Misses          6        6           

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.

[arbrandes]

No objections (this component doesn't use caching explicitly), but can you please rebase on master and regenerate package-lock?

[leangseu-edx]

Update requested change

[arbrandes]

Looks good, thanks!

[adamstankiewicz]

@arbrandes @leangseu-edx Just a heads up, this PR could have been released as a non-breaking change if the peer dependency range denoted compatibility with v2 and v3 of @edx/frontend-platform (e.g., ^2.0.0 || ^3.0.0), which is true since this component doesn't use caching explicitly as @arbrandes identified earlier 😄

@leangseu-edx Also, reminder... if we make a change in this repository that is a breaking change for the component API or peer dependencies, an equivalent change should be made in our -footer-edx equivalent repository.

[adamstankiewicz]

@leangseu-edx @arbrandes Also note, the PR description denoted this as a breaking change (which it was) but it wasn't actually released to NPM as a breaking change (only a new minor version was bumped)...

[arbrandes]

@adamstankiewicz, any idea what the commit message missed? I was under the impression only a BREAKING CHANGE: in the body would be enough. Do we normally also need an exclamation point after the tag? (feat!:)?

[adamstankiewicz]

@arbrandes BREAKING CHANGE: in the body should be all it requires, however, I don't think the commit that merged with master included the BREAKING CHANGE: in the commit body (it's only in the PR description).