DLL - updated imports

[pomek]

Suggested merge commit message (convention)

Internal: Updated import paths. See #8581.

---

Additional information

After merging the PR, remember about adding the note below to the list of breaking changes here – #8614 (comment).

BREAKING CHANGE: The `Title` no longer load `Paragarph`. Make sure to add `Paragraph` to the editor plugins when using `Title` feature.

[pomek]

This PR requires additional eslint rules:

• Rule that disallows direct imports of CKEditor 5 DLL packages eslint-plugin-ckeditor5-rules#2
• Added the "ckeditor5-rules/ckeditor-dll-import" rule eslint-config-ckeditor5#1

In order to test everything, you need to clone additional repositories. Assuming, that your current working directory is set to ckeditor workspace:

• git clone git@github.com:ckeditor/eslint-plugin-ckeditor5-rules.git
• cd eslint-plugin-ckeditor5-rules
• git checkout i/8581
• yarn link (it should call yarn install)
• cd ../
• The same for the second repository.
• git clone git@github.com:ckeditor/eslint-config-ckeditor5.git
• cd eslint-config-ckeditor5
• git checkout i/8581
• yarn link (it should call yarn install)
• cd ../
• The main repository:
• cd ckeditor5
• yarn link eslint-plugin-ckeditor5-rules
• yarn link eslint-config-ckeditor5

Then, on the dll-integration branch, yarn run lint should print some errors. The i/8581 branch should fix those errors.

[Reinmar]

Why do we need to add these?

[pomek]

CF.

[Reinmar]

If we're adding InsertOperation we should also add all other operations here.

[Reinmar]

What about these?

[Reinmar]

So, my stance on this is that consistency is important. It will be confusing which packages use direct imports and which go via ckeditor5. We'd need additional ESLint rules to enforce that packages within the DLL use direct imports.

Therefore, I'd rather state it a bit differently: Every package that we have may only have three types of imports:

• directly from within the same package (local ones)
• from ckeditor5
• from 3rd party things

Therefore, it'd be great if you could research how much work would require to enforce this rule. I think it may require adding a few more things to packages' index files but other than that it seems doable.

[Reinmar]

Oh, and one more thing – you can also consider my yesterday's finding that plugins that are part of the Essential plugin should be in the DLL.