fix: Remove extra margin around body element

[Lunyachek]

This pull request proposes fixing the margin around the body element. This margin comes from the tinyMCE styles. In cases where we don't have a custom theme, and the header and footer are white, it's not noticeable (1st screenshot). However, if the header and footer have any color, it immediately stands out (2nd and 3rd screenshots). The important property is set not by chance, as without it, the styles from the tinyMCE override the styles from the index.scss file.

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @Lunyachek!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/committers-frontend.

Once you've gone through the following steps feel free to tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for engineering review.

🔘 Get product approval

If you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.

• If it does, you'll need to submit a product proposal for your contribution, and have it reviewed by the Product Working Group.
  • This process (including the steps you'll need to take) is documented here.
• If it doesn't, simply proceed with the next step.

🔘 Provide context

To help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:

• Dependencies

  This PR must be merged before / after / at the same time as ...

• Blockers

  This PR is waiting for OEP-1234 to be accepted.

• Timeline information

  This PR must be merged by XX date because ...

• Partner information

  This is for a course on edx.org.

• Supporting documentation
• Relevant Open edX discussion forum threads

🔘 Get a green build

If one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green.

---

Where can I find more information?

If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:

• Overview of Review Process for Community Contributions
• Pull Request Status Guide
• Making changes to your pull request

When can I expect my changes to be merged?

Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible.

However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:

• The size and impact of the changes that it introduces
• The need for product review
• Maintenance status of the parent repository

💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 84.14%. Comparing base (20ef900) to head (627e4d5).
⚠️ Report is 19 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #193      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   84.02%   84.14%   +0.11%     
==========================================
  Files          47       47              
  Lines         695      700       +5     
  Branches      135      135              
==========================================
+ Hits          584      589       +5     
  Misses        111      111              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[mphilbrick211]

Hi @openedx/committers-frontend! This is ready for review, as is the backport. Thanks!

[brian-smith-tcril]

This issue seems to be bigger than just the margins. When inspecting I found

vs

I don't think that going through and overriding all the tinymce styles with !important is a sustainable solution, have you looked into any recommended strategies for not having tinymce styles leak out into the rest of the page?

[Lunyachek]

I don't think that going through and overriding all the tinymce styles with !important is a sustainable solution, have you looked into any recommended strategies for not having tinymce styles leak out into the rest of the page?

You're definitely right! I looked deeper and found a solution in the MFE discussions - https://github.com/openedx/frontend-app-discussions/blob/master/src/components/TinyMCEEditor.jsx I applied the fix in the same way

[mphilbrick211]

Hi @Lunyachek and @brian-smith-tcril, just checking in on this!

[mphilbrick211]

Hi @Lunyachek and @brian-smith-tcril, just checking in on this!

Friendly follow-up on this @Lunyachek @brian-smith-tcril

[brian-smith-tcril]

I think this is likely a good solution, but I'd like to get a second opinion on using raw-loader. @arbrandes thoughts?

Context: Since my previous review this PR has been updated to follow the raw-loader pattern for loading TinyMCE styles that we are using in the discussions MFE. I'm just not sure if this is a pattern we want to continue using, or if we should be looking for a pattern we like more to apply in places we are currently using this pattern.

[mphilbrick211]

@Lunyachek @brian-smith-tcril - is this still in progress?

[Lunyachek]

@Lunyachek @brian-smith-tcril - is this still in progress?

I hope - yes :) Branch have been rebased

[Lunyachek]

Branch has been rebased again

[sarina]

@brian-smith-tcril @arbrandes this is our 2nd oldest PR in the whole Open edX project! Any chance we could get movement on a review?

@Lunyachek could you rebase and addressed failing checks?

[sarina]

Bump on this for both a review and a rebase.

[arbrandes]

This is going to come back to haunt us when we try to move off of Webpack, but:

1. It does solve the problem
2. There's precedent in frontend-app-discussions

Still, I would prefer we try Asset Module syntax instead. It is more similar to what Vite and Rsbuild are doing, don't require a new dependency, and might not require an eslint exclusion.

[arbrandes]

Can we try this instead, as per https://webpack.js.org/guides/asset-modules/#replacing-inline-loader-syntax?

Suggested change

	import contentCss from '!!raw-loader!tinymce/skins/content/default/content.css';
	import contentCss from 'tinymce/skins/content/default/content.css?raw';

We already have local webpack configuration in this MFE anyway, so might as well add that stanza there, too:

module: {
    rules: [
     {
       resourceQuery: /raw/,
       type: 'asset/source',
     }
    ]
  },

[Lunyachek]

@arbrandes I applied your suggestion. It works perfectly - thanks for pointing me in this direction

[arbrandes]

Thank you!

[brian-smith-tcril]

The !!raw-loader version of this was updating both the contentUiCss import and the contentCss import. Was the contentUiCss change not needed or should that have ?raw added too?

[arbrandes]

Good catch. I missed that. @Lunyachek?

[PKulkoRaccoonGang]

@Lunyachek and I discussed this, and it definitely makes sense. I also found a Stack Overflow thread where ?raw is used for both TinyMCE style imports.

// We're also importing styles manually and later attach them to editor. `?raw` here means that we're not using 
// any kind of style-loader (webpack) and just want to import content of file as plain string
// This requires additional setup in webpack and might look different for other build systems
import contentCss from 'tinymce/skins/content/default/content.min.css?raw';
import contentUiCss from 'tinymce/skins/ui/oxide/content.min.css?raw';

New PR: #260