[BD-46] feat: defined types for Paragon export

[monteri]

Description

Define types for Paragon exports
Issue: #1964

Deploy Preview

Include a direct link to your changes in this PR's deploy preview here (e.g., a specific component page).

Merge Checklist

• If your update includes visual changes, have they been reviewed by a designer? Send them a link to the Netlify deploy preview, if applicable.
• Does your change adhere to the documented style conventions?
• Do any prop types have missing descriptions in the Props API tables in the documentation site (check deploy preview)?
• Were your changes tested using all available themes (see theme switcher in the header of the deploy preview, under the "Settings" icon)?
• Were your changes tested in the example app?
• Is there adequate test coverage for your changes?
• Consider whether this change needs to reviewed/QA'ed for accessibility (a11y). If so, please add wittjeff and adamstankiewicz as reviewers on this PR.

Post-merge Checklist

• Verify your changes were released to NPM at the expected version.
• If you'd like, share your contribution in #show-and-tell.
• 🎉 🙌 Celebrate! Thanks for your contribution.

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @monteri!

When this pull request is ready, tag your edX technical lead.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for paragon-openedx ready!

Built without sensitive environment variables

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	24efb89
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/paragon-openedx/deploys/64e32669ee1daf00089bb0ce
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2566--paragon-openedx.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 75.00% and project coverage change: +0.03% 🎉

Comparison is base (7e5b37d) 91.65% compared to head (24efb89) 91.69%.
Report is 11 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2566      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.65%   91.69%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         236      236              
  Lines        4195     4227      +32     
  Branches     1012     1022      +10     
==========================================
+ Hits         3845     3876      +31     
- Misses        346      347       +1     
  Partials        4        4              

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
src/Breadcrumb/index.jsx	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/Card/CardStatus.jsx	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/ChipCarousel/index.tsx	84.84% <ø> (ø)
src/ActionRow/index.tsx	93.33% <75.00%> (ø)

... and 3 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[bradenmacdonald]

I'm really happy to see this PR! I can help test/review if you like - let me know how I can help.

I have a couple questions:

1. How were these .d.ts files generated? Are they manually authored or generated from propTypes, etc.? How do we ensure they stay in sync with propTypes and the actual implementation?
2. Don't we need to add exports.*.types: and typesVersions etc. to package.json for this to work? Something like this.

[PKulkoRaccoonGang]

@bradenmacdonald Thank you for paying attention to this PR.
The initial idea was to rewrite the Paragon components into Typescript. After discussions with @adamstankiewicz, we decided this would be a fairly breaking change and wrote the types separately without changing the component file extensions.

1. The .d.ts files were written by hand. Now we have type declarations for exported constants and propTypes. We did not consider the option of automatically generating types because the Paragon components use Bootstrap and we do not have access to the full props API. If you have any ideas on how to solve this problem it would be great 💯
2. We tested type checking in MFE and it worked. Your proposal may solve a problem we were unaware of at the time of development.

[bradenmacdonald]

@PKulkoRaccoonGang Thanks for the details!

@PKulkoRaccoonGang @adamstankiewicz What do you think about splitting this up into smaller PRs and trying to get them merged separately? I think we should really try to make at least the tests and the documentation site consume the TypeScript types, so that we have some way of checking that they're used and in sync.

Here's an example of what I mean: #3016 (I noticed that this PR doesn't include types for the <Icon> component, and the existing types were incorrect, so I fixed the types and made changes to the tests and the documentation site so that they're using the types. That way if the types change and introduce a bug, we should see errors when checking the tests or the docs site.)