New connection page design

[jamakase]

What

Includes a bunch of improvements for Connection Form:

• Batch Edit
  

• New Connection Form UI

  • New StreamFields table
    
  • New tooltips for table headers
  • Update stream meta info
    
  • Add Collapsible Cards
    
  • New settings navigation
    

• Move transformation to separate tab
  

• Set 24h sync by default Closes set "Every 24 hours" as the default sync frequency #9733

Closes #9728
Closes #9729
Closes #4226
Closes #9462

What is left:

• Search section for primary key
• Search in PathPopout ( primary key and cursor field )
• Update onboarding
• Migrate table to react-table ( for better support of tables and proper column resizes )
• Minor designs update ( checkbox positioning, paddings in table )

Recommended reading order

1. ConnectionForm.tsx
2. CollapsibleCard.tsx
3. FormCard.tsx
4. services/BulkEdit/BulkEditService.tsx
5. BulkEditHeader.tsx
6. PathPopout.tsx

---

This change is 

[jamakase]

• 🐛 When the "Replication frequency" is set to "Manual" it will now always clear the select to an empty "..." instead of showing manual.
• Since most of the settings are now moved to the "Replication" and "Transformation" page, let's change the "gear icon" link in the connections overview table to lead to the replication page instead of the settings page, which now only holds the delete button.

Addressed.

• We should have a message if the Transformation section is empty, stating that this connection doesn't support any transformations.
  

[timroes]

I'd suggest we never try to attach the props.data.label as a testid here. Since this is i18n, and we might want to run tests later against different or psuedo i18n, I think if testId isn't specified we should directly fallback to the value instead, and use something like lodash's camelCase to make sure we're getting rid of spaces in it.

[jamakase]

That's exactly the reason why I added this logic. By default, we were setting data-testid to label, so if we change it right now to value - it will break some e2e tests.

Should we open separate task for it? Or should I fix it as part of this PR?

[timroes]

Let's push it into a separate PR. We could potentially also just enforce a testid for all input if we anyway do it in a separate PR.

[timroes]

Tested this on Chrome Linux. Functionality wise seems to work. I've mostly have minor concerns around design and code left, but we should not block this PR now on this, and fix them afterwards. So LGTM for me to merge.