Add RegistryProvider to all React apps

Feature Description

In order for all components to have access all datastores, we should wrap all of our React apps with a RegistryProvider to avoid the need to add this provider to each individual component.

---

Do not alter or remove anything below. The following sections will be managed by moderators only.

Acceptance criteria

• All React apps (e.g. GoogleSitekitDashboard) should wrap their children in a <Root> component.
• The <Root> component should wrap any app in all of the required components (ErrorHandler, Data.RegistryProvider, etc.)
• Wrapping should be consistent across all apps

Implementation Brief

• Create a new component (“Root”) in assets/js/components/root/index.js
• Wrap children passed to <Root> in <Data.RegistryProvider value={ Data }> and <ErrorHandler>, to begin 😄
• It likely makes sense to allow a custom registry to be passed to <Root> for testing, so it should accept a registry prop whose default value is Data.
• Add googlesitekit-data to the common $dependencies array shared by all main entrypoints in Assets::get_assets()

QA Brief

Changelog entry

• Wrap all JavaScript apps into Root component with essential providers, error handlers etc.

[felixarntz]

Thanks for the additional context @aaemnnosttv and @tofumatt! That all sounds good to me, IB ✅

Let’s stick with consistently using lowercase file/directory names for components for now, this is not the right point to change it. I’m in favor of making the change overall (as I think it’s a great way to easily differentiate components), but it should happen with a separate issue at some point.

[aaemnnosttv]

The main advantage here at this point is I guess that we don’t need to wrap our refactored components with a RegistryProvider every time, like we’re doing so far?

Yeah. The registry is just provided via Context to all child components. We only need it once so it makes component refactoring simpler as well. I’ve added this issue as a dependency of #1531 for this reason.

Let’s make sure there are no downsides to all the legacy code also being within this provider.

There should be no downside to adding this. I would imagine that if there was @tofumatt would have flagged that but a quick POC shows that everything seems to work fine 😄

One thing I did notice though is that we need to also enqueue googlesitekit-data everywhere as well. I’ll add this to the IB.