[material-next][ButtonGroup] Change ButtonGroup files to ts

[lhilgert9]

• I have followed (at least) the PR section of the contributing guide.

ButtonGroup issue: #39686
Material You umbrella issue: #29345

Changes

• Change ButtonGroup files to TS
• Fix ts errors

[mui-bot]

Netlify deploy preview

https://deploy-preview-39794--material-ui.netlify.app/

Bundle size report

Details of bundle changes (Toolpad)
Details of bundle changes

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against b79f726

[lhilgert9]

@mnajdova I have changed the type for the OwnerState so far. We should try to adopt this way for the other components in material-next, because as far as I know this has not been done so far.

[lhilgert9]

@mnajdova @mj12albert We could also consider introducing a new type in @mui/types to make it easier to create the OwnerState types. An example of this would be:

type PickRequired<T, K extends keyof T> = DistributiveOmit<T, K> & {
  [P in K]-?: T[P];
};

We could introduce this in this PR or in a separate one.

Then we could use this type as follows:

import { PickRequired } from '@mui/types'

export interface ButtonGroupOwnerState
  extends PickRequired<ButtonGroupProps,
      | 'color'
      | 'disabled'
      | 'disableElevation'
      | 'disableRipple'
      | 'disableTouchRipple'
      | 'fullWidth'
      | 'orientation'
      | 'size'
      | 'variant'
  > {}

[mj12albert]

We could also consider introducing a new type in @mui/types to make it easier to create the OwnerState types

I agree this could be helpful, we could discuss and refine in a separate issue CC @DiegoAndai

We've actually kind of started making OwnerState types with Omit/Required/Pick here and there already 😅 e.g.

• https://github.com/mui/material-ui/blob/master/packages/mui-base/src/FormControl/FormControl.types.ts#L79-L85
• https://github.com/mui/material-ui/blob/master/packages/mui-material-next/src/FormControl/FormControl.types.ts#L82-L93

[mnajdova]

The types look good to me 👍 I will let @DiegoAndai chime in and let his opinion lastly before we merge this. Thanks a lot for the effort @lhilgert9 🙏

[DiegoAndai]

This looks good to me 🎉

The utility type for the owner state also makes sense to me. Left a comment on that issue.

Should we merge this @mnajdova? Go ahead if you think we should, just asking as you were reviewing it originally.

[lhilgert9]

@DiegoAndai @mnajdova OwnerState type is now also fixed. Now everything should be ready in this PR to merge.

[mnajdova]

Sorry for the delay, let's udpate to matest master and merge 👍

[lhilgert9]

@mnajdova Done👍🏽