CmdPal: Add settings cards to adaptive cards [Experiment]

[jiripolasek]

Summary of the Pull Request

Caution

WIP

Should we adapt to adaptive cards, or adapt adaptive cards to fit our needs?

• Adds new controls to adaptive cards that are based on SettingsCard so they fit seamlessly.
• Todo:
  • Separate padding and margin settings on the content card, allowing them to be disabled when rendering the Settings page in the Settings window, but retained when displayed as a page in the Command Palette.
  • More controls
  • Error message + adorner
  • Is required adorner
  • Header icons
  • Improve initialization

Pictures? Pictures! ... WIP

PR Checklist

• Closes: #xxx

• Communication: I've discussed this with core contributors already. If the work hasn't been agreed, this work might be rejected
• Tests: Added/updated and all pass
• Localization: All end-user-facing strings can be localized
• Dev docs: Added/updated
• New binaries: Added on the required places
  • JSON for signing for new binaries
  • WXS for installer for new binaries and localization folder
  • YML for CI pipeline for new test projects
  • YML for signed pipeline
• Documentation updated: If checked, please file a pull request on our docs repo and link it here: #xxx

Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments

Validation Steps Performed

[jiripolasek]

@niels9001 Hi! I heard you want the checkbox in settings to look like CheckBoxWithDescriptionControl... so how about we just make it CheckBoxWithDescriptionControl? 😈

[niels9001]

Oooh I LOVE this 🤩!

Would nesting be possible too? Like, rendering some of these as partnof an Expander?

Total stretch goal though.. this is awesome!

[zadjii-msft]

oh hell yes

[zadjii-msft]

Honestly I had thought we would need to do something like creat our own ISettingContent : IContent to try and get it to look this nice. This? This is sweet

[jiripolasek]

@zadjii-msft @michaeljolley One minor but significant issue is that this still resides in the SDK, so any change requires the extension to be recompiled before it takes effect.

What if the settings were more declarative, with the host handling the transformation? This would limit customization to predefined controls, but could be balanced by providing a host-adapter container (SettingsCard) that’s injected with a user-defined adaptive card element. It comes with trade-offs—it might offer better consistency and shield extension authors from changes, but it also adds complexity. Just food for thought 🍗