fix: Enforce minimum width for CheckboxField

[engfragui]

Short description

While polishing our AI Task Creator UI Extension implementation (specs, GitHub epic, Twist thread), we realised that the checkboxes would be smaller than expected when text was longer than average:

This is due by the fact that reactist's CheckboxField does not enforce a minimum width for the correspondent checkbox:

Closeup view:

(source: reactist storybook)

This PR enforces a minimum width (24 pixels) for the CheckboxField field:

PR Checklist

• Added tests for bugs / new features
• Updated docs (storybooks, readme)
• Executed npm run validate and made sure no errors / warnings were shown
• Described changes in CHANGELOG.md
• Bumped version in package.json and package-lock.json (npm --no-git-tag-version version <major|minor|patch>) ref
• Updated all static build artifacts (npm run build-all)

Versioning

Even though I don't think anyone is banking on this "indefinitely shrinking" feature, this is technically a breaking change, as the checkbox corresponding to the CheckboxField element won't keep shrinking indefinitely, but will now have a minimum width.

Checklist for reviewer

• Look at code change in src/new-components/checkbox-field/checkbox-icon.tsx
• Verify that all the rest of the automated changed brought in by npm run build-all makes sense (they seem like a lot of changes, that's why I'm mentioning it)
• Feel free to test these changes by adding a very long text into your local storybook (localhost:6006) (example)

[nats12]

I'm not sure about the vendor files, I can't see those in the last few PRs created. CC'ing @gnapse who has recently worked closely with Reactist to double check. Are these vendor files normally generated when building?

[engfragui]

Re: vendors file

I was also somewhat skeptical, but I'm now looking at older PRs and it seems like they appear in there too (example, example, example) 🤷‍♀️

[gnapse]

Regarding the vendors file, this is something we want to get rid, and not have to do (see #675), but for now we have to do it. I think this is what updates the static storybooks build hosted in https://doist.github.io/reactist

[gnapse]

@engfragui after you merge this, you need to create a new release:

1. Visit https://github.com/Doist/reactist/releases/new

2. Do as instructed in the video below

   Video

   CleanShot.2022-11-15.at.12.18.29.mp4

3. Check in the actions tab that this triggered an action to publish to npm

4. Once the action is done, you can check https://npmjs.com/package/@doist/reactist to see that you have a new public release.

Let me know if you need more help.

This is also something that we should probably document elsewhere. Or better yet, to fully automate it, so that merely merging something would trigger the whole process.

[engfragui]

@gnapse Everything is pretty clear in the README's releasing section as well so I would say it's already documented.

However:

• I notice that the reminder to run npm run build-all appears only in the PR template and not in the actual README so maybe we can add that to the README as well
• I like your numbered list better than the format I see in the README's releasing section

If my notes make sense, I will send a quick PR with these updates.

[engfragui]

@gnapse Errr does https://github.com/Doist/reactist/actions/runs/3480872733 look good? It does to me (no errors).

I do see the new version in https://github.com/Doist/reactist/releases/tag/v17.0.1, but not in https://www.npmjs.com/package/@doist/reactist

Let me know if you spot something that looks fishy. Thank you

For now, I'll hold off before merging the correspondent todoist-web PR (https://github.com/Doist/todoist-web/pull/5388)

[scottlovegrove]

@engfragui It is there on npm https://www.npmjs.com/package/@doist/reactist/v/17.0.1

[engfragui]

Err ok, https://www.npmjs.com/package/@doist/reactist looks like this for me

I guess cached/delayed. Thank you Scott

[scottlovegrove]

Almost certainly cached, because I have

[gnapse]

If my notes make sense, I will send a quick PR with these updates.

Sure @engfragui, send a PR to change the README to make it better. Whatever you think, as a newcomer to this repo, that should be improved, most probably needs improvement. We the usual suspects contributing here may have gotten used to the status quo too much.

Thanks for your contributions, BTW.

[engfragui]

No action needed from you, but here's the quick README update I mentioned I wanted to take care of: #726