[Feature] Adding storybook and MDX script

[MatteoPieroni]

PR Description

• Added storybook and configured to work with TS and MDX
• Added to README generation in gen-package-readme/index a task to generate README.story.
• Added validation to prompt when selecting packages
• Added skip step function

Motivation and Context

We wanted a way to showcase the use of hooks in a component, this is the first step

Types of changes

• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

[MatteoPieroni]

I also pushed the config for Netlify, hope you don't mind: https://deploy-preview-5--use-hooks.netlify.com/?path=/docs/useboolean--usage 😃

[MatteoPieroni]

The only thing that doesn't really work as intended is the code preview:

[MatteoPieroni]

Any comments on this @simmo ?

[simmo]

This is looking good. Is there a way we can hide canvas and just have it show the docs?

[MatteoPieroni]

This is looking good. Is there a way we can hide canvas and just have it show the docs?

Done, I added the --docs flag to the storybook scripts.

On another note, did we ditch Netlify?

[simmo]

Its should still be working but looks like the check is missing from Github 🤔

[MatteoPieroni]

@simmo I added a function called emptyPromptRetry to be able to read an empty selection for the prompt and re-ask the same question an x number of times.

I am skipping the story generation step if there is no StoryComponent file.

I also added the skip for the package gen if there are no packages selected after the 3 warnings, I wanted to add a message to this case but Listr automatically swallows all logs and it's useless to throw an error as we are not making the build fail.
Should we remove the exitOnError: false? I would argue it's better if we make it fail, even if it fails only for one package

[simmo]

@simmo I added a function called emptyPromptRetry to be able to read an empty selection for the prompt and re-ask the same question an x number of times.

I might be missing this, but could the prompt just have a validate option that requires at least one to be selected?

I am skipping the story generation step if there is no StoryComponent file.

👍

I also added the skip for the package gen if there are no packages selected after the 3 warnings, I wanted to add a message to this case but Listr automatically swallows all logs and it's useless to throw an error as we are not making the build fail.

Does that mean it skips the entire script?

Should we remove the exitOnError: false? I would argue it's better if we make it fail, even if it fails only for one package

Yep I think thats ok, my only thought is that the packages before the error will have succeeded so therefore in one package will then stop any following from passing. What about keeping as is but cachet has the error?

[simmo]

Looks like Netlify checks are back. I re added the integration so... 🤞

[MatteoPieroni]

I might be missing this, but could the prompt just have a validate option that requires at least one to be selected?

It can yes, I didn't check the prompt object 😓 Changed it!

Does that mean it skips the entire script?

Yes, I removed it now, since prompt doesn't let you go ahead if validation doesn't pass

Yep I think thats ok, my only thought is that the packages before the error will have succeeded so therefore in one package will then stop any following from passing. What about keeping as is but cachet has the error?

Sorry, I didn't quite understood what you mean

[simmo]

Yep I think thats ok, my only thought is that the packages before the error will have succeeded so therefore in one package will then stop any following from passing. What about keeping as is but cachet has the error?

Sorry, I didn't quite understood what you mean

If you have packages; A, B, C, D.

Currently, if the script fails at C, both A and B will have completed, C failed and the script will continue to run D. The outcome is either success or failed for each package.

If we change exitOnError to be a true, then a failure at C will mean D will never run. The outcome will then be either, success, failed or not run.

[MatteoPieroni]

That makes sense, the part I was confused about was this:

What about keeping as is but cachet has the error?

[simmo]

That makes sense, the part I was confused about was this:

What about keeping as is but cachet has the error?

Ah ok, sorry bad type on my part there! Using the example in the previous comment, could we keep it as is, but catch the failure at C? That way A, B and D would still succeed and you'd only need to rerun C. We could even catch failures and then ask to rerun the failed ones?

[MatteoPieroni]

Ah ok, sorry bad type on my part there! Using the example in the previous comment, could we keep it as is, but catch the failure at C? That way A, B and D would still succeed and you'd only need to rerun C. We could even catch failures and then ask to rerun the failed ones?

Yeah, I think that would be good.

Should we do it in the next PR though, so we can get this merged? I'm going crazy with the dependabot PRs to be merged in the branch 😅

[simmo]

Yeah, I think that would be good.

Cool, I'll let you add a ticket for that 😉

Should we do it in the next PR though, so we can get this merged? I'm going crazy with the dependabot PRs to be merged in the branch 😅

Yep, love dependabot, but I've getting RSI from all the merging and PRing! 😂

Yes, merge when you're happy! 🚀
We can use #3 to add more docs once this base in merged.