Clarify the "shape matching" bits: namespaces, `CODEOWNERS` and as issue queue component

@larowlan I don't think so — that's adding one missing concept: adapters. It touches the matcher, but won't refactor it.

Quoting my response from the MR where you raised this:

Eventually, maybe. Right now, we should first explore what the shape is of the needed solution.

In this particular class though I'm not convinced yet we'd need an event/what the benefit would be. Because this is 100% reusing what's in `SdcPropToFieldTypePropMatcher`, it just adds heuristics to generate a sensible ordering. Events implies many pieces of logic collaborating, but that'll result in heuristics fighting/conflicting. In this particular situation, I think replacing the service would be more appropriate.

— https://git.drupalcode.org/project/experience_builder/-/merge_requests/2...

Thoughts?

Will give this a try

Putting this down to work on #3456008: [later phase] Support matching enum SDC prop shapes against DynamicPropSources, not only generating StaticPropSources

With #3461499: Support complex SDC prop shapes: introduce (Storable)PropShape to compute field type storage settings in, this needs a significant change.

#3461499: Support complex SDC prop shapes: introduce (Storable)PropShape to compute field type storage settings is done

With #3461499 done, I'd like to both clean this up and update CODEOWNERS.

Voila!

(Assigned to @tedbow because he led the work on #3469436: Fix the visually broken "image" component instance: use FileUriItem's computed `url` property, not the stored `value` property. And before that, he reviewed #3471171: Allow components to use textarea in favor of input. Retroactively moving both to the new issue queue component.)

While Ted is sleeping, let’s get Felix’ input already 😊

I'm baffled that @f.mazeikis has zero comments, zero nitpicks 😅

Maybe he'll post those later.

Either way: now getting @tedbow's +1! 🤞

Well, the MR is mostly clarifying, removing dead code and updating docs. I don't have any nitpicks 😅

My only comment is that perhaps we should file an issue for #note_374141, just so we don't lose track of that it still needs to be addressed.

Good point! I wonder why that comment of yours on the MR doesn't show up here in the d.o issue?! 😬 Issue created: #3473822: [later phase] Support Drupal's `timestamp` field type + widget?.

Your self-review questions on MR and contextualisation of commits was really helpful.
There was a lot of context and information to go through, so it took some time.
But at the end I feel like I know much better what is happening in that MR and in general with Props/Shapes/JsonInterpreter related part of backend.
Hence the lack of nitpicks - it is a significant improvement to clarity when it comes to namespacing, docs and inline docs.

Thanks for all the notes @wim leers!

Thanks!

I'll bypass the need for approval for /*.info.yml since literally all it's changing is 2 comments (updated FQCNs).

Next up: #3468112: Document the current component discovery + SDC criteria + `Component` config entity, and describe in an ADR.