refactor: Use formik and yup, and simplify hooks

[xitij2000]

Description

This change converts the Image Editor Modal to TypeScript and simplifies the hooks switching to Formik + Yup for form validation.

It updates the tests to check the behaviour of the component as a whole rather than testing small components.

This lays the groundwork for the CSS editor work.

Supporting information

• Allow Authors to Apply CSS Classes to Images platform-roadmap#494
• Reduce vertical spacing between field titles and inputs in the Studio image editor platform-roadmap#493
• Improve usability of the alt text control in the Studio image editor platform-roadmap#492

Testing instructions

• Compare the before and after shots of the image editor, the only changes should be those from the following two PRs:
  • Improve usability of the alt text control in the Studio image editor platform-roadmap#492
  • Reduce vertical spacing between field titles and inputs in the Studio image editor platform-roadmap#493

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, @xitij2000!

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.

[xitij2000]

Changed because title is only supposed to be a string and not a ReactNode.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 95.64%. Comparing base (b0efcd6) to head (b585ea5).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2993      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   95.62%   95.64%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1392     1409      +17     
  Lines       33131    33363     +232     
  Branches     7707     7581     -126     
==========================================
+ Hits        31681    31909     +228     
- Misses       1385     1404      +19     
+ Partials       65       50      -15     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.

[farhaanbukhsh]

@xitij2000 Functionality looks good I have few suggestions though!