Add polymorphic component check in getElementType

[kendallgassner]

What

Refine how we check the semantics of custom component. Allow polymorphicPropName to be passed in via the settings field. This allows linting configurations to customize the propname they use for polymorphic components.

{
  "settings": {
    "github": {
      "polymorphicPropName": "asChild",
      "components": {
        "Box": "p",
        "Link": "a"
      }
    }
  }
}

Open questions

1. Would we ever want to allow multiple polymorphicPropName? ['as', 'asChild']?
2. Do we want to recursiely check the components map? i.e. Box => a (this is implemented but might be overkill)

      "components": {
        "Box": "Link",
        "Link": "a"
      }
   

[khiga8]

This looks great, and much simpler what we had! Thank you for this change. 😍

Regarding your questions:

1. Ooh maybe?? I didn't think of that. We could always start with support for one, and expand if we see a need. Maybe @TylerJDev has a better sense!
2. I personally prefer consumers define a simple a 1:1 component name to HTML tag mapping for readability and to avoid complexity.

[khiga8]

Since one might already have defined a map in the shape we expect for the jsx-a11y plugin, I wonder if we should allow using that if it exists? Maybe use that if useJsxA11yMap boolean config is set to true?

The potential risk is if the component map for jsx-a11y becomes a different shape (idk how likely this is) through future updates, then that could result in breaking changes for the rules in this library, until we update this.

I'm happy to ship how it is and revisit this later too! I will leave it to you!

[kendallgassner]

hmmmm, 🤔 lets ship it like this since its still 'experimental' and then decide if we want to add the boolean based on the results (i.e. testing it in product for a little bit) -- that will give us time to test if we need to add any variables to the components object.

[khiga8]

The polymorphic as value is prioritized over the default component map value. This is as I'd expect ✅

[kendallgassner]

@khiga Regarding your comment on question 2, I will switch to the 1:1 mapping and we can add in the recursive nature if we find that its needed.

[kendallgassner]

@TylerJDev @khiga8 I will follow up in a new pr if we find that we need multiple as types:

"polymorphicPropName": ["asChild", "as"]