feat: remove onDelete for Placeholder tag for non Platform admiins

[RODO94]

What does this PR do?

This PR adds a role access constraint to the Placeholder tag so only PlatformAdmins can edit it, but everyone can see it.

To do this, I have restricted the renderOption function so it only shows Placeholder tag in the MultiSelect for PlatformAdmin users. I have also added the constraint to the renderTags function, so it removes the onDelete from the Chip component when a user is not a PlatformAdmin

With the changes to TAG_DISPLAY_VALUES we can now use Role types to add further permission layers in future if required. To ensure this happens, new logic would need to be introduced to the canEdit() in ComponentTagSelect()

[github-actions]

Removed vultr server and associated DNS entries

[DafyddLlyr]

There might be a more generalisable pattern here than just toggling controls for a single named tag.

Could we set rules in an object, maybe a renamed/repurposed TAG_DISPLAY_VALUES that controls the behaviour?

export const TAG_DISPLAY_VALUES: Record<
  NodeTag,
  { color: keyof Palette["nodeTag"]; displayName: string, isEditable?: boolean }
> = {
  placeholder: {
    color: "blocking",
    displayName: "Placeholder",
    isEditable: useStore.getState().user?.isPlatformAdmin
  },
  ...

I think this would give us a more robust, scalable, and data driven solution.

Also, it would be great to see some tests here describing the change please 🙏

[DafyddLlyr]

This still feels a bit more complex and hard to follow than it needs to be.

I'd really recommend changing the variable name from isEditable (which denotes a boolean) to something more indicative of a Role[] - maybe editableBy?

Have a look at how EditorNavMenu solves a very similar problem.

[RODO94]

This still feels a bit more complex and hard to follow than it needs to be.

I'd really recommend changing the variable name from isEditable (which denotes a boolean) to something more indicative of a Role[] - maybe editableBy?

Have a look at how EditorNavMenu solves a very similar problem.

Nah you're definitely right, this slipped my mind when making the changes, sorry!