feat: add doc for typescript auth helpers

[haijian-vaadin]

This PR copies the commit done in the old doc repo for typescript authentication helpers.

For vaadin/flow-and-components-documentation#1402.

[netlify]

✔️ Deploy preview for vaadin-docs-preview ready!

🔨 Explore the source changes: 5f75e38

🔍 Inspect the deploy logs: https://app.netlify.com/sites/vaadin-docs-preview/deploys/600887b1b134860008cf9f12

😎 Browse the preview: https://deploy-preview-94--vaadin-docs-preview.netlify.app

[jouni]

@haijian-vaadin, please update from master, to get the Vale check running correctly. Do a rebase preferably, if possible. Otherwise you need to touch each .asciidoc file to trigger the check for them.

[jouni]

It pains me a little bit, that there are two login-view.ts files that have some amount of the same code.

I wonder if there’s a way to avoid the duplication? I didn’t look in detail if that would make sense, though – maybe the examples are different enough that the copy-pasted code doesn’t hurt.

[haijian-vaadin]

Oh, finally it's all green, no more Vale errors.

[joheriks]

Got this TS error when running mvn spring-boot:run:

ERROR in [at-loader] ./frontend/demo/fusion/authentication/handle-session-expiration/login-overlay.ts:10:11 
    TS6133: 'onSuccess' is declared but its value is never read.

[joheriks]

I noticed an error in the build:

error /Users/joheriks/vaadin/docs/articles/fusion/security/fusion-security-custom-spring-login.asciidoc, line 9 - level 0 sections can only be used when doctype is book

Seems to be because of the line just before:

ifdef::env-github[:outfilesuffix: .asciidoc]

What is this for, is it needed?

[haijian-vaadin]

Confirmed with the doc team, it's not needed, I removed it.

[joheriks]

Confirmed with the doc team, it's not needed, I removed it.

There are some one sentence per line and similar Vale errors in that file (fusion-security-custom-spring-login.asciidoc) now reported that could be fixed on (Vale errors blink because they are cleared between checks and only reported for files touched in the last commit).

[jouni]

We should not introduce this change. Where is this causing problems? I believe all occurences of this “word” should either be inside code snippets or [filename]## classes, and therefore not part of the linting checks.

[haijian-vaadin]

I don't remember, I think I got a Vale error. I can remove this and let's see.

[haijian-vaadin]

Yes, this one https://github.com/vaadin/docs/pull/94/files#annotation_853322011

[jouni]

These (JWT and LDAP) should be added to Abbr.yml, not here, if we want to make these as exceptions of abbreviations that we don’t need to explain. But I’m hesitant in adding them, because I would not expect all readers to know what they mean.

[haijian-vaadin]

thanks for the comment, done