Moving allow public read switch from admin console

[jacobo-dominguez-wgu]

Description

Adding the "Allow public read" switch into the sidebar on the library page.
This feature was moved from admin-console since we are also supporting courses there and it is not gonna be exclusive for libraries anymore.

Useful information to include:
Resolves #2925
PR removing feature on admin console: openedx/frontend-app-admin-console#99

Testing instructions

• Go to studio http://studio.local.openedx.io:8001/
• On the Libraries Tab select any of the libraries (be sure you have manage permissions over that library, if not the switch is going to be disabled)
• When in the library page, click on the "Library Info" button to show the Info sidebar (It maybe visible by default).
• The switch should appear under the "Settings" subtitle.
• Click on the switch to toggle public read of the library.

Best Practices Checklist

We're trying to move away from some deprecated patterns in this codebase. Please
check if your PR meets these recommendations before asking for a review:

• Any new files are using TypeScript (.ts, .tsx).
• Avoid propTypes and defaultProps in any new or modified code.
• Tests should use the helpers in src/testUtils.tsx (specifically initializeMocks)
• Do not add new fields to the Redux state/store. Use React Context to share state among multiple components.
• Use React Query to load data from REST APIs. See any apiHooks.ts in this repo for examples.
• All new i18n messages in messages.ts files have a description for translators to use.
• Avoid using ../ in import paths. To import from parent folders, use @src, e.g. import { initializeMocks } from '@src/testUtils'; instead of from '../../../../testUtils'

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @jacobo-dominguez-wgu!

This repository is currently maintained by @bradenmacdonald.

Once you've gone through the following steps feel free to tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for engineering review.

🔘 Get product approval

If you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.

• If it does, you'll need to submit a product proposal for your contribution, and have it reviewed by the Product Working Group.
  • This process (including the steps you'll need to take) is documented here.
• If it doesn't, simply proceed with the next step.

🔘 Provide context

To help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:

• Dependencies

  This PR must be merged before / after / at the same time as ...

• Blockers

  This PR is waiting for OEP-1234 to be accepted.

• Timeline information

  This PR must be merged by XX date because ...

• Partner information

  This is for a course on edx.org.

• Supporting documentation
• Relevant Open edX discussion forum threads

🔘 Get a green build

If one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green.

Details

---

Where can I find more information?

If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:

• Overview of Review Process for Community Contributions
• Pull Request Status Guide
• Making changes to your pull request

When can I expect my changes to be merged?

Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible.

However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:

• The size and impact of the changes that it introduces
• The need for product review
• Maintenance status of the parent repository

💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 95.51%. Comparing base (24e1c73) to head (d40370f).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #2942   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.51%   95.51%           
=======================================
  Files        1329     1330    +1     
  Lines       30557    30582   +25     
  Branches     6925     6927    +2     
=======================================
+ Hits        29186    29211   +25     
  Misses       1303     1303           
  Partials       68       68           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[arbrandes]

I tested this and it works as advertised, nice!

I have some concerns about the code, though, as seen below.

[arbrandes]

Thanks! A couple more observations inline below.

[arbrandes]

Do we still need the onError, or is the catch() below enough?

[jacobo-dominguez-wgu]

Yes we need both, onError catches errors like 400 and 500 errors and catch() handles JS runtime errors, React Query errors or network errors with no http status.

[arbrandes]

I did some research, and it doesn't look like we need it. getAuthenticatedHttpClient() rejects the promise for any non-2xx status by default, so 400s and 500s will also be caught by .catch().

(Another way to look at it: if we did need an onError, then the rest of this codebase that uses mutateAsync would be missing it.)

[jacobo-dominguez-wgu]

Good to know, I have removed the onError, thanks!

[arbrandes]

Looks good!