getOptions getter for Phase 2 store refactor

[jarmoza]

This closes #276.

This PR implements two new store getters getCategoricalOptions and getTransformOptions for the phase 2 store refactor, tests for them, and necessary refactors to components/tests that use these getters.

These getters handle retrieving options for categorical columns (via the Levels key in a column in dataDictionary.userProvided) and continuous values categories (soon to be for columns) from a new store field transformationHeuristics.

Unit tests have been implemented for current option retrieval scenarios in store-getters-getCategoricalOptions.cy.js and store-getters-getTransformOptions.cy.js.

Both the annot-continuous-values and annot-categorical components have been lightly refactored to make use of these new getters. (Additionally, some formatting changes have been made in these component/test files to accord with code formatting in the repo.)

At least one open question for this PR is a point of discussion as to whether or not this new store field transformationHeuristics is a reasonable spot and configuration for storing transform heuristic options.

[surchs]

Thanks for the PR @jarmoza. All looks good, but I think we'll need to change where the categorical options are coming from, "Levels" or even the data dictionary in general don't make sense. I left a more detailed comment inline.

[surchs]

At least one open question for this PR is a point of discussion as to whether or not this new store field transformationHeuristics is a reasonable spot and configuration for storing transform heuristic options.

Ah, missed this. The transformHeuristics field makes sense to me - if you feel like this is a likely refactor target in the near future, we could add a TODO comment so we'll be reminded to think about it again after a while

[jarmoza]

@surchs Will add a comment about possible different place for the `transformationHeuristics store field.

[jarmoza]

@surchs Take a look at my recent commits. I believe they address the issues mentioned above.

[surchs]

Thanks @jarmoza, I agree. This looks good to go. I left two comments for my own clarity, but go ahead and merge when you've seen them.