hooks and documentation for use-selection

[Han5991]

Description

Changes

• Added use-selection custom hook implementation in [@mantine/hooks].
• Fixed the isSomeSelected logic to handle empty data cases correctly and added related test cases.
• Introduced comprehensive tests for use-selection in [@mantine/hooks].
• Improved documentation in [@mantine/docs], including:
  • Storybook setup for showcasing components and hooks.
  • Initial version of demos for better usage reference.
• Updated [@mantine/core] to use @mantine/hooks for state management.
• Updated [@mantine/dates] to use @mantine/hooks for state management.

[jvdsande]

For having implemented such a hook in my own project, I'd suggest the following should be added:

• if data changes, remove from selected any entry that is not in data anymore

@rtivital is that going too far for what you had in mind?

[rtivital]

Yeah, makes sense, I'll check how this should be handled, probably as an option

[jvdsande]

At the very least I think isSomeSelected should check that at least one selected entry is present in data

[Han5991]

@jvdsande
Thanks to you, we've added related notes code and test code.

[Han5991]

Hi @rtivital

I noticed that PR #7873 had its target branch changed to the next version branch, while my PR #7872 (which implements similar useSelection functionality) is still targeting the current branch.

I'm curious about the decision process - was there something specific about the implementation approach or timing that influenced which PR gets included in which version? I'd love to understand the criteria so I can better align my contributions with the project roadmap.

Both PRs seem to tackle similar functionality, so I'm wondering if there are plans to:

• Include both implementations for different use cases?
• Choose one approach over the other?
• Merge the best aspects of both?

I'm happy to collaborate or adjust my PR based on the project's needs. Thanks for all the great work on this project!

Best regards

[rtivital]

On Discord you've mentioned that you want to implement it out of interest. The other person requested to develop this feature before you and submitted PR. Implementations are not very different, so, from my side, it seems to be more polite to accept the PR that was assigned to someone initially. Nothing wrong with the code.

[Han5991]

On Discord you've mentioned that you want to implement it out of interest. The other person requested to develop this feature before you and submitted PR. Implementations are not very different, so, from my side, it seems to be more polite to accept the PR that was assigned to someone initially. Nothing wrong with the code.

@rtivital
Thank you for the explanation. I understand your reasoning and I fully respect your decision as the maintainer. I’ll go ahead and close this PR. Appreciate your time and feedback!