chore: clean up ValidationResult for NumericalInput problems

[bradenmacdonald]

Description

This fixes a minor issue with the code in the Numerical Input problem editor answer validation.

Specifically, the code isInvalid={!data?.isValid ?? true}

If you think about it:

• if isValid is true, then this evaluates to {!true ?? true} which is {false ?? true} which is false.
• if isValid is false, then this evaluates to {!false ?? true} which is {true ?? true} which is true.
• if isValid is undefined, then this evaluates to {!undefined ?? true} which is {true ?? true} which is true.

In any case, the ?? true has absolutely no effect. And oxlint actually warns about this:

  ⚠ eslint(no-constant-binary-expression): Unexpected constant nullishness on the left-hand side of a "??" expression
    ╭─[src/editors/containers/ProblemEditor/components/EditProblemView/AnswerWidget/AnswerOption.jsx:92:13]
 91 │           />
 92 │           {(!data?.isValid ?? true) && (
    ·             ──────────────────────
 93 │           <Form.Control.Feedback type="invalid">
    ╰────
  help: This expression always evaluates to the constant on the left-hand side

As it says, "this expression always evaluates to the constant on the left-hand side", so there is no need for the right-hand side.

I also added a type definition for the validation data.

Supporting information

This follows #2615 and is part of the work to test oxlint in this repo - #2559

Testing instructions

Test that validation of numerical input answers is working the same as it was before.

Other information

Include anything else that will help reviewers and consumers understand the change.

• Does this change depend on other changes elsewhere?
• Any special concerns or limitations? For example: deprecations, migrations, security, or accessibility.

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, @bradenmacdonald!

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.

[bradenmacdonald]

@jesusbalderramawgu could you please review this tiny PR? I'm testing out a new linter and it caught a very minor issue with one of your PRs.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 95.18%. Comparing base (9d9d7a7) to head (5a491e1).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2849      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.18%   95.18%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1318     1318              
  Lines       30012    30011       -1     
  Branches     6549     6776     +227     
==========================================
- Hits        28566    28565       -1     
+ Misses       1387     1375      -12     
- Partials       59       71      +12     

☔ 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.

[jesusbalderramawgu]

looks good to me and totally agree with your boolean explanation, thanks!

[jesusbalderramawgu]

@jesusbalderramawgu could you please review this tiny PR? I'm testing out a new linter and it caught a very minor issue with one of your PRs.

of course, I reviewed this already, thank you!

[bradenmacdonald]

@jesusbalderramawgu Thanks, that was fast!

[ChrisChV]

Looks good! 👍 I found a bug that is not related to this PR: https://www.loom.com/share/9bfd9025aa944afa8ffc4c1780e9624a

• I tested this: I verified that the numerical verification works
• I read through the code and considered the security, stability and performance implications of the changes.

[bradenmacdonald]

Thanks @ChrisChV. Could you please open a new issue for that bug?