feat(ledger-browser): implement dynamic app setup

[outSH]

feat(ledger-browser): implement dynamic app setup

• Read gui supabase connection information from environment variable.
  Include .env files in common .gitignore file.
  Change ledger-browser typescript target and module to esnext to use
  vite environment variables.
• Read app configuration from the supabase DB.
• Add button on home page for adding new application.
  Clicking on it will open dialog with setup wizzard.
  User must filter apps by it's group (step 1), select the app (step 2),
  input common app configuration data (step 3)
  and lastly input app-specific configuration (JSON format).
• Add button to configure already added app. It opens a dialog that allows
  editing app details in the database.
  It also contains a button for deleting the app (after confirmation).
• Show full screen error message with setup guidelines
  when app has failed to connect to supabase.
• Clean up supabase type files, move app-related typedefs to specific app dirs.

Depends on #3347

Pull Request Requirements

• Rebased onto upstream/main branch and squashed into single commit to help maintainers review it more efficient and to avoid spaghetti git commit graphs that obfuscate which commit did exactly what change, when and, why.
• Have git sign off at the end of commit message to avoid being marked red. You can add -s flag when using git commit command. You may refer to this link for more information.
• Follow the Commit Linting specification. You may refer to this link for more information.

Character Limit

• Pull Request Title and Commit Subject must not exceed 72 characters (including spaces and special characters).
• Commit Message per line must not exceed 80 characters (including spaces and special characters).

A Must Read for Beginners
For rebasing and squashing, here's a must read guide for beginners.

[github-actions]

This PR/issue depends on:

• hyperledger/cacti#3347
  By Dependent Issues (🤖). Happy coding!

[izuru0]

LGTM

[outSH]

@petermetz @jagpreetsinghsasan I can't make PR - Commit Parity check pass even though I have a 1-1 copy of a commit message in a PR, any advice? Would like to merge it fast to continue with another PR

[jagpreetsinghsasan]

@outSH sorry for the blocker. I just now checked and it seems that there was one more regex needed before matching the pr body to the commit array elements (An extra quote was there in the striped strings). I will create a PR to address this.

Can we not merge this PR if its urgent as I will test some more scenarios before actually pushing the fix?

[petermetz]

@outSH sorry for the blocker. I just now checked and it seems that there was one more regex needed before matching the pr body to the commit array elements (An extra quote was there in the striped strings). I will create a PR to address this.

Can we not merge this PR if its urgent as I will test some more scenarios before actually pushing the fix?

@jagpreetsinghsasan I'm good with merging this as-is, let's not treat it as a blocker until we have high confidence that the check is working well and is not just being annoying people with being pedantic and overly strict.
It is meant to catch the problem when people write an essay in the PR description and pretty much nothing in the commit message just because it's easy to edit the PR description but a lot of people are afraid of using --amend and rebase in general so they avoid dealing with commit messages after the initial PR opening.

So I'd say, in general, that the the PR commit parity check is still in beta testing and so I haven't made it mandatory for now in the branch protection rules either.

And I have been merging pull requests that fail the check too because I couldn't figure it out, see => https://github.com/hyperledger/cacti/issues/3470 for details on my adventures.

[petermetz]

@petermetz @jagpreetsinghsasan I can't make PR - Commit Parity check pass even though I have a 1-1 copy of a commit message in a PR, any advice? Would like to merge it fast to continue with another PR

@outSH Thank you for looking out for the check and trying to make it work and sorry that it's not perfect yet! I put a bunch more thoughts in my comment above, but long story short: I'm good to merge as-is and sorry about the confusion!