Fix TV render sizing for non-TV panels

[smg6511]

What does it do?

Implement more reliable and flexible sizing specs via updated css, removing explicit widths from Ext configs. The changes allow every built-in TV type to display correctly, no matter where they are placed.

Why is it needed?

Many TV types do not render well when moved to the various Resource regions, overflowing the region boundaries. In some cases the inner input (holding the current value) also obscured the right border because of incorrect sizing.

How to test

1. Run grunt build while in the _build/templates/default folder
2. Create each TV type (two of each if wanting to test the render to the TV panel and to Resource regions at the same time)
3. Setup Form Customization to move each TV type to one of the Resource regions.
4. Verify width and general sizing is consistent with other built-in fields as well as among moved TVs

Related issue(s)/PR(s)

Resolves #12839 and #13977

Special Note

More work could be done to improve the styling overall (e.g., maybe more space vertically between fields, fine-tuning spacing and sizing of the descriptions/labels, etc.) and I did not focus much on the mobile view as there are problems to fix there beyond TV rendering which are out of scope of this fix.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 21.45%. Comparing base (304208d) to head (39e9c33).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on 3.x.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                3.x   #16809      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     21.54%   21.45%   -0.09%     
- Complexity    10734    10769      +35     
============================================
  Files           565      566       +1     
  Lines         32616    32948     +332     
============================================
+ Hits           7026     7069      +43     
- Misses        25590    25879     +289     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[smg6511]

@theboxer - Greetings - I see you've reviewed a couple of my UI-related PRs today. Thanks for that! It'd be great if you could check this one out as well ;-)

[theboxer]

Seems good to me.

Before:

After:

[opengeek]

@smg6511 — unfortunately, I cannot merge this PR as is. The two merge commits you added cause conflicts when I perform the rebase I have to do before the grunt build. Can you remove those merge commits and rebase 7b09ed7 on top of 3.x? You'll have to force push.

[smg6511]

@opengeek Ok, I think I got it sorted. It was odd though that the conflict was coming from one of the non-English lexicon files 🤷

Ehhh, strike that: What the h#ll is going on with this one !? I don't get why the rebase is behaving this way. Will try again...

[smg6511]

@theboxer - Hey, when you get a chance can you jump over to #16819 and give it a quick peak and approval (as you did here)? My rebasing of this PR got all botched up and it was easier to just re-sumbit these changes on a clean branch. No new changes were made. Thanks!