antd theme related changes, bump v4 to v5

[Manish3323]

Reasons for making this change

this PR is to fix #3639.

Checklist

• I'm updating documentation
  • I've checked the rendering of the Markdown text I've added
• I'm adding or updating code
  • I've added and/or updated tests. I've run npm run test:update to update snapshots, if needed.
  • I've updated docs if needed
  • I've updated the changelog with a description of the PR
• I'm adding a new feature
  • I've updated the playground with an example use of the feature

[heath-freenome]

@Manish3323 Can you rebase and resolve conflicts as well as updating the CHANGELOG.md?

[Manish3323]

In the change log, I need to mention upcoming version, what version do you suggest ?
5.13.0 / 6.x ?
Since this might be a breaking change for antd users.

Thanks

[nickgros]

@Manish3323 if we can't keep antd@ 4.x in the peer dependencies for @rjsf/antd, then this will be a breaking change and we'll have to go to 6.x.x

@heath-freenome I know we had a number of changes planned for 6.x, but we haven't started on them. If this is ready, what do you think about bumping the major version for just this PR?

[Manish3323]

@nickgros hi i have updated the peer dependency for @rfjs/antd to v4, which will not make this change a breaking one.

Still, If users want to make use of v5 styling then they need to wrap their app with the following provider, like i have done in playground's DemoFrame.tsx.

<StyleProvider> from '@ant-design/cssinjs'

else they can still have the v4 styling.

the forms now look like following with v5:

When playground doesn't make use of StyleProvider, antd v4 styles kicks in because the stylesheet is pointing to v4's cdn link of ant.min.css in app.tsx:

[heath-freenome]

@Manish3323 please update things so that there are no longer conflicts

[heath-freenome]

@Manish3323 if we can't keep antd@ 4.x in the peer dependencies for @rjsf/antd, then this will be a breaking change and we'll have to go to 6.x.x

@heath-freenome I know we had a number of changes planned for 6.x, but we haven't started on them. If this is ready, what do you think about bumping the major version for just this PR?

@nickgros @Manish3323 If this can be made backwards compatible with v4 (which it sounds like it might be) then I don't think we need to worry about bumping RJSF to v6. It sounds like antd v6 is pretty breaking, in which case we'll want to push that into our v6.

@Manish3323 I like that you added the documentation into the CHANGELOG.md. Would you be willing to also add this information into a new Using antd v5 sub-section of the API Reference > themes > antd > AntD Customization. Thanks

[Manish3323]

Hi, @heath-freenome Updated docs for Antd & resolve conflicts.

[cr8or1]

@Manish3323 If @nickgros and @heath-freenome are going to bump the version of RJSF to v6 I think it will be easier to bump the version of AntD to v5 and go only with v5. I don't see a reason to keep v4 and add a new package: https://github.com/ant-design/cssinjs and wrap the form with this packages.

[Manish3323]

@cr8or1 i agree with you.. i made those changes thinking that major release is not coming in near future. if that is the case, i can keep v5 only

[heath-freenome]

@cr8or1 @Manish3323 If we did do a v6, there is a lot of things we'd like to get into it, which could result in a long-lived branch before we go beta. If these changes can be backwards compatible to antd v4, then I think the best bet is to go that route

[Manish3323]

Github not allowing to open this PR, I think my rebase workflow is not github ui friendly.

Any how i have incorporated your suggestions in this PR (#3849)

[Manish3323]

lol.. github is crazy now i am allowed to open this one.. :p

[cr8or1]

@Manish3323 was this merged with main or just Closed?

[Manish3323]

@cr8or1 pls check this one #3849

This one got closed automatically.