Update CONSTS to direct developers to use role instead of accessibilityRole (#31500)

[trevor-coleman]

This fixes the issue with ROLE and ACCESSIBLITY_ROLE identified earlier and discussed on Slack.

It makes the following changes:

Changes to CONST.ts

1. Reverts CONST.ACCESSIBILITY_ROLE.TEXT to the value 'text'
2. Adds deprecation warnings on CONST.ACCESSIBLITY_ROLE and all properties
3. Creates the CONST.ROLE object with JSDoc comments

Fixes to Components

Simple find-replace

The majority of components were fixed using a simple find and replaced that made the following change

Replace: role={CONST.ACCESSIBILITY_ROLE with role={CONST.ROLE

For example:

role={CONST.ACCESSIBILITY_ROLE.BUTTON} would become role={CONST.ROLE.BUTTON}

Specific Cases

Description	Why Change Was Made	Before	After
Components using TEXT to mean PRESENTATION	Aligned with correct key in CONST.ROLE	role={CONST.ACCESSIBILITY_ROLE.TEXT}	role={CONST.ROLE.PRESENTATION}
Inappropriate use of IMAGEBUTTON	IMAGEBUTTON only available in accessibilityRole. Corrected property to accessibilityRole and pointed to the right const	role={CONST.ACCESSIBILITY_ROLE.IMAGEBUTTON}	accessibilityRole={CONST.ACCESSIBILITY_ROLE.IMAGEBUTTON}
Inappropriate use of ADJUSTABLE	adjustable is not available in role but is in accessibilityRole. Reverted the value and updated prop to reflect correct usage	role={CONST.ACCESSIBILITY_ROLE.ADJUSTABLE}	role={CONST.ROLE.SLIDER}
Use of non-existent ACCESSIBILITY_ROLE.IMAGE	Replaced with valid role value	role={CONST.ACCESSIBILITY_ROLE.IMAGE}	role={CONST.ROLE.IMG}

Note: In the IMAGEBUTTON Case, I thought it was best to preserve the imagebutton role information, and minimize the number of changes, rather than try to decide on a case-by-case basis what an appropriate replacement would be.

Details

Fixed Issues

$
PROPOSAL:

Tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
  • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS: Desktop
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
  • I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(themeColors.componentBG))
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
• If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

[cdanwards]

@trevor-coleman looks like the linter isn't happy! And some conflicts

[cdanwards]

Also we should probably point it at a different branch than main and then PR that branch against ExpensifyApp/main so it can go through their process.

[cdanwards]

Love the detail in documentation

[trevor-coleman]

Linter passing -- going to make that new branch now.

[trevor-coleman]

@cdanwards -- lints are passing, and this is now against a feature branch. I think she's ready to go.

[trevor-coleman]

Love the detail in documentation

Yeah when I do big find-replaces like this I like to document the edge cases to (hopefully) make it easier to review.

[cdanwards]