refactor(ui5-link): change the accessibleRole property type

[unazko]

The accessibleRole property of the ui5-link component now takes the enum LinkAccessibleRole with default value of Link.
The usage of this property from application perspective would not get changed since string values are still accepted.

Related to: #8461

[hinzzx]

LGTM.

[tsanislavgatev]

I have some doubts about the name of the Enum if we use it in both controls, but I can't think of a better one at the moment.

[ilhan007]

Having ButtonAccessibleRole type for a property in the Link seems a little odd. I would prefer duplication of the enum with "Link" in the name.

Option 1: Creating a LinkAccessibleRole enum (duplicate of ButtonAccessibleRole enum) with the same fields and using it in Link.ts:

/// Link.ts
@property({ type: LinkAccessibleRole, defaultValue: LinkAccessibleRole.Link })
accessibleRole!: `${LinkAccessibleRole}`;

Option 2: Creating enums as in Option 1 + reusing the base AriaRole:

/// Button.ts
import AriaRole from "@ui5/webcomponents-base/dist/types/AriaRole.js";

enum ButtonAccessibleRole {
	Button = AriaRole.Button,
	Link = AriaRole.Link
}

/// Link.ts
import AriaRole from "@ui5/webcomponents-base/dist/types/AriaRole.js";

enum LinkAccessibleRole {
	Button = AriaRole.Button,
	Link = AriaRole.Link
}

Don't have a preference over these two, I am open for other suggestions as well.
The main point is that ButtonAccessibleRole will be displayed in Link's API reference as type for the Link#accessibleRole property and it's a bit confusing.

[ilhan007]

ButtonAccessibleRole and LinkAccessibleRole are still public enums and have to be documented accordingly and also consumers should be able to import them.

Now that I thought about the "import" aspect, it's better to choose option1

• revert the ButtonAccessibleRole in types
• add LinkAccessibleRole in types