feat(form): allow to ignore init of existing fui modules inside form

[lubber-de]

Description

In case one wants to handle dropdown or calendar init after form init, this PR adds an optional ignoreModulesOnInit setting to support that.

Testcase

Selecting any value inside the dropdown must be clearable
https://jsfiddle.net/lubber/3pLrgvsa/1/

Closes

#2791

[mvorisek]

fomantic/Fomantic-UI-Docs#469 (comment)

I would prefer initChildModules (with true as default for BC) setting instead /w a console error when an uninitialized module is observed (when needed for some op).

Also, to fix #2791 fully, is it possible to emit a console error when a module is initialize more then once? (as as discovered in the issue, 2nd init setting is ignored and it implies a broken usage).

[lubber-de]

This PR is obsolete as the main issue was fixed by #2794

[lubber-de]

I would prefer initChildModules (with true as default for BC) setting instead /w a console error when an uninitialized module is observed (when needed for some op).

I implemented that in the latest commit, however, as i recognized the basic issue was caused by dropdown rather than form, i dont think we should have the need to implement that setting anymore

Also, to fix #2791 fully, is it possible to emit a console error when a module is initialize more then once? (as as discovered in the issue, 2nd init setting is ignored and it implies a broken usage).

This would be needed inside every module and in some cases this possibly isnt an error (re-instantiating is possible by design).
However, you can simply adopt my attempt inside the last commit and check for a previous instantiation yourself.

let $element = $('.ui.dropdown');
     iWasInstantiatedBefore = $element.data('module-dropdown');

if (!iWasInstantiatedBefore) {
    $element.dropdown();
}

[mvorisek]

This would be needed inside every module and in some cases this possibly isnt an error (re-instantiating is possible by design).
However, you can simply adopt my attempt inside the last commit and check for a previous instantiation yourself.

Thank you. If re-instantiating is by design and working properly, I agree this PR is not needed anymore.

[ko2in]

@lubber-de Do I have to approve this PR?

I've understood that you've said we're not gonna need this implementation here and here.

[lubber-de]

@lubber-de Do I have to approve this PR?

No, i'll close this without merging and removed the "awaiting-review" tag