preset-create-react-app: Fix monorepos and PnP

[merceyz]

What's the problem this PR addresses?

• @storybook/preset-create-react-app is using the pnpapi directly to query the top level workspace to try to locate react-scripts but this doesn't work when in a monorepo where the top level probably doesn't depend on react-scripts and even if it did, it might not be the same version as the one the workspace depends on
• react-scripts doesn't have a main field nor a index file so resolving it fails

Fixes https://github.com/storybookjs/presets/issues/58 Fixes https://github.com/storybookjs/presets/issues/161 Fixes https://github.com/storybookjs/presets/issues/168 Fixes https://github.com/storybookjs/storybook/issues/10078 Closes https://github.com/storybookjs/presets/pull/166

How did you fix it?

• Remove the PnP specific logic as querying the pnpapi directly is usually not the answer
• Resolve the package.json of react-scripts to be able to locate it

[merceyz]

The logic here https://github.com/storybookjs/presets/blob/0a8ce5616fd9a9a77b3296d151221152c07dbbff/packages/preset-create-react-app/src/helpers/getReactScriptsPath.ts#L5-L43 should be removed in the next major and instead just have users provide the forked name as an option, which is already supported and doesn't rely on implementation details of the package managers

[gaetanmaisse]

cc @shilman, a.k.a. release master, for your comment about the cleaning that would require a major release

[gaetanmaisse]

@shilman can we merge and release this one?

I think it could solve some of the current issues in https://github.com/storybookjs/storybook/pull/13559 😇

[rdsedmundo]

I'm using pnpm and I had to specify options.scriptsPackageName='react-scripts', even though it's not a fork. This is because the symlink resolution doesn't work the same way for pnpm, it's not a symlink in their case, and the realpath resolution resolves to the file itself, causing the module to not be found.

The #166 PR had removed this logic altogether, this PR didn't touch it but it closed #166 due to the "Closes" in the description.

I see @merceyz mentioned the necessity of removing this logic on the next major release, is this tracked in an issue? Otherwise, it'll likely be forgotten.