fix: Tabs fn should be overrideable

[scomea]

📖 Description

The protected "setTabs" function in the Tabs component was written as an arrow function which made overriding it difficult as you can't simply call super.setTabs() to invoke the base class function when extending the Tabs class. This change converts that function to a class member so it can be overridden more easily. Additional minor cleanup of component code.

This is a breaking change in that anyone who currently has a workaround to override this function will need to make changes (ie. storing the base class arrow function and invoking it, for example).

🎫 Issues

Ad hoc.

✅ Checklist

General

• I have included a change request file using $ yarn change
• I have added tests for my changes.
• I have tested my changes.
• I have updated the project documentation to reflect my changes.
• I have read the CONTRIBUTING documentation and followed the standards for this project.

Component-specific

• I have added a new component
• I have modified an existing component
• I have updated the definition file
• I have updated the configuration file

[KingOfTac]

Thanks Stephane!

[bheston]

It looks like that was the convention for many of the private functions. Is there a benefit to this model in any case? I wonder if we should document it as a coding convention for any particular use.

[chrisdholt]

It looks like that was the convention for many of the private functions. Is there a benefit to this model in any case? I wonder if we should document it as a coding convention for any particular use.

The intent of "protected" is to enable extensibility for classes which extend this as a base class while maintaining their behavior (especially those which are core to the functionality or something like accessibility). https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/2/classes.html#member-visibility

[bheston]

...intent of "protected"...

I was referring to the arrow function mechanism. I'm not sure what the benefit of that style is as it doesn't support the normal override capability. I was reading it as something you could call from a subclass but not override, like a sort of hybrid private/protected. It seemed intentional though.

[chrisdholt]

...intent of "protected"...

I was referring to the arrow function mechanism. I'm not sure what the benefit of that style is as it doesn't support the normal override capability. I was reading it as something you could call from a subclass but not override, like a sort of hybrid private/protected. It seemed intentional though.

Gotcha - thx for clarification here! We often use arrows for events, we should probably avoid for protected classes where we do setup like this. I think that’s a good call out.