Fix case warning on derived properties

[nitnelave]

Description

Replace the _build suffix with a PropsBuild suffix to respect Camel-case types.

When deriving Properties, the compiler sometimes complains of the
non-Camel-case Foo_build. This fixes the issue.

Checklist

• I have run cargo make pr-flow
• I have reviewed my own code
• I have added tests

[nitnelave]

I'm open to a better suggestion instead of PropsBuilder, but I don't know this part of the code well enough to find a better name :)

[siku2]

I would prefer if we added attributes to suppress these error messages instead.
In this case #[allow(non_camel_case_types)] would do the trick, but we could cover our bases and do:
#[allow(warnings, clippy::all)] which should silence Clippy and all rustc warnings including non_camel_case_types

[ranile]

Why not use the right conventions? I'd prefer to keep the code, even generated code, according to the conventions

[nitnelave]

+1 to keeping the right conventions.

[siku2]

Why not use the right conventions? I'd prefer to keep the code, even generated code, according to the conventions

I guess I should've clarified. I totally agree in this case, I don't see a good reason why the ident should be _build here, but this is by far not the only case where the Properties derive macro generates idents that go against conventions.
It would be nice if we could fix all of them in this PR.

For instance, here's one case that deserves the attributes:

yew/packages/yew-macro/src/derive_props/field.rs

Lines 33 to 39 in 5e683b7

	/// This step name is descriptive to help a developer realize they missed a required prop
	pub fn to_step_name(&self, props_name: &Ident) -> Ident {
	Ident::new(
	&format!("{}_missing_required_prop_{}", props_name, self.name),
	Span::call_site(),
	)
	}

This type deliberately goes against conventions to draw attention to itself, because it's the only thing a user sees when they don't pass a required prop.
MyProps_missing_required_props_id is more obvious than MyPropsMissingRequiredPropsId

[nitnelave]

Fair enough, but in that case it's an error anyways, it's okay if it fails linting :D

[teymour-aldridge]

Maybe "MyProps_missing_required_props_id" should be in all caps to make it even more obvious :D

[siku2]

Fair enough, but in that case it's an error anyways, it's okay if it fails linting :D

Well no, the type is named that way regardless of whether the app compile or not. If you managed to get a warning for the _build struct it should also be possible to get one for these structs.

Maybe "MyProps_missing_required_props_id" should be in all caps to make it even more obvious :D

Hmm yeah, that might help.

---

Anyway, I'm just gonna go ahead and merge this. Further changes can be done in subsequent PRs