UIPFU-91 - React v19: refactor away from default props for functional components

[Terala-Priyanka]

Purpose

Approach

TODOS and Open Questions

Learning

Pre-Merge Checklist

Before merging this PR, please go through the following list and take appropriate actions.

• I've added appropriate record to the CHANGELOG.md
• Does this PR meet or exceed the expected quality standards?
  • Code coverage on new code is 80% or greater
  • Duplications on new code is 3% or less
  • There are no major code smells or security issues
• Does this introduce breaking changes?
  • If any API-related changes - okapi interfaces and permissions are reviewed/changed correspondingly
  • There are no breaking changes in this PR.

If there are breaking changes, please STOP and consider the following:

• What other modules will these changes impact?
• Do JIRAs exist to update the impacted modules?
  • If not, please create them
  • Do they contain the appropriate level of detail? Which endpoints/schemas changed, etc.
  • Do they have all they appropriate links to blocked/related issues?
• Are the JIRAs under active development?
  • If not, contact the project's PO and make sure they're aware of the urgency.
• Do PRs exist for these changes?
  • If so, have they been approved?

Ideally all of the PRs involved in breaking changes would be merged in the same day to avoid breaking the folio-testing environment. Communication is paramount if that is to be achieved, especially as the number of intermodule and inter-team dependencies increase.

While it's helpful for reviewers to help identify potential problems, ensuring that it's safe to merge is ultimately the responsibility of the PR assignee.

[github-actions]

Jest Unit Test Statistics

19 tests  +3   19 ✔️ +3   40s ⏱️ +16s
  4 suites +1     0 💤 ±0 
  1 files   ±0     0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 16ffb28. ± Comparison against base commit d98e258.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[github-actions]

BigTest Unit Test Statistics

0 tests  ±0   0 ✔️ ±0   0s ⏱️ ±0s
0 suites ±0   0 💤 ±0 
0 files   ±0   0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 16ffb28. ± Comparison against base commit d98e258.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
69.8% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 80%)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud