chore: conform project names in monorepo

[mimarz]

Aimed for short but descriptive names on our projects.

Updated after comments

• @web for stuff under /web
• @plugin for stuff under /plugins
• Added new internal folder for internal stuff
• packages stays as before
• kept storefront as this will be removed soon-ish
• kept theme so that we can make the RR7 version using @app/theme
• Had to update @types/react to latest because some devDependency was messing with @internal/components types and use of Dialog
• Fixed missing package.json in biome ignore
• Renamed apps to web (webs sounds weird)
  • Renaming will have to be done after chore: advanced color settings prototype #3432 & feat(themebuilder): improved color modal #3512

# /web
@web/theme
@web/www
@web/storybook 

# /internal
@internal/components

# /plugins
@plugin/figma

# /packages
@digdir/designsystemet
@digdir/designsystemet-css
@digdir/designsystemet-theme
@digdir/designsystemet-react

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 653864c

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 0 packages

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[github-actions]

Preview deployments for this pull request:

Storybook - 6. May 2025 - 07:54

Storefront - 6. May 2025 - 07:56

Theme - 6. May 2025 - 07:56

[github-actions]

Coverage Report

Status	Category	Percentage	Covered / Total
🔵	Lines	49.03%	3311 / 6752
🔵	Statements	49.03%	3311 / 6752
🔵	Functions	83.26%	219 / 263
🔵	Branches	77.82%	579 / 744

File Coverage

No changed files found.

Generated in workflow #2964 for commit 653864c by the Vitest Coverage Report Action

[Barsnes]

@app/components is a bit misleading and could clash in the future.
Could we go with @app/_components or @repo/components

[mimarz]

@app/components is a bit misleading and could clash in the future. Could we go with @app/_components or @repo/components

hmm, yeah, not to fan of the underscore either. 🤔

1. @app/components-internal
2. @app/internal-components
3. @app/shared|internal We then add an export for /components, so using would be import { CodeBlock } from '@app/shared/components'. This way we can also have shared utils, types and other stuff across our apps

[unekinn]

@app/components is a bit misleading and could clash in the future. Could we go with @app/_components or @repo/components

I agree with this. Having it under apps/ at all is confusing to me. How about @internal/components (in a new folder internal)? Such a folder structure is quite normal for non-public packages in monorepos.

apps/ 
    www
    storybook
    ...
internal/
    components
packages/
    cli
    react
    ...

[unekinn]

Also not quite sure why the Figma plugin needs its own top-level plugins/ folder. In my head it is an app, just on a different runtime and with a different deployment process 🤔

[mimarz]

@app/components is a bit misleading and could clash in the future. Could we go with @app/_components or @repo/components

I agree with this. Having it under apps/ at all is confusing to me. How about @internal/components (in a new folder internal)? Such a folder structure is quite normal for non-public packages in monorepos.

apps/ 
    www
    storybook
    ...
internal/
    components
packages/
    cli
    react
    ...

Bah, why we didn't we think of this before 😂 This approach makes much more sense to me, cleaner naming aswell :)

[Barsnes]

Also not quite sure why the Figma plugin needs its own top-level plugins/ folder. In my head it is an app, just on a different runtime and with a different deployment process 🤔

We had a brief discussion about it when we added the plugin. The reason we went for that folder is in case we get more plugins later on.
I mentioned last week that we can rename "apps" to "web", which would make "plugins" make more sense

[mimarz]

Also not quite sure why the Figma plugin needs its own top-level plugins/ folder. In my head it is an app, just on a different runtime and with a different deployment process 🤔

We had a brief discussion about it when we added the plugin. The reason we went for that folder is in case we get more plugins later on. I mentioned last week that we can rename "apps" to "web", which would make "plugins" make more sense

This will break a lot of PRs now tho 💔

[mimarz]

We will break this up into several smaller PRs

[mimarz]

Continue in #3559