fix: USM text input not taking up full width

[kduncanhsu]

Manual QA reported a bug on staging where the UnifiedShareModal was being rendered incorrectly in EUA.

This PR fixes that by adding width: 100% to the Tooltip wrappers which are rendered in EmailForm

BEFORE

AFTER

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Style
  • Refined email sharing form styling: tooltip target now spans full width for improved layout and visual consistency; minor CSS/class scoping updates to stabilize presentation across contexts. No changes to functionality or public interfaces.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Adds a stylesheet import and a scoped className to the EmailForm component, introduces a CSS rule targeting tooltip elements under .bdl-EmailForm, and consolidates several object destructurings in component methods (stylistic refactors only).

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
EmailForm component src/features/unified-share-modal/EmailForm.js	Imported EmailForm.scss; injected bdl-EmailForm into component classNames; condensed destructuring in componentDidUpdate and validateContactsRestrictions (no behavioral changes).
EmailForm styles src/features/unified-share-modal/EmailForm.scss	Added rule targeting .bdl-EmailForm .bdl-Tooltip-target to set width: 100% for tooltip targets.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes

Suggested labels

ready-to-merge

Suggested reviewers

• tjiang-box
• tjuanitas

Poem

🐰 A patch with sass and tidy lines,
I hopped through code and straightened signs.
Tooltips stretch to fit the frame,
Destructured bits — still runs the same. 🎉

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly summarizes the main change: fixing a USM text input width issue to be full width, which directly corresponds to the changes in EmailForm component and styling.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Description check	✅ Passed	PR description includes context, problem statement, and visual evidence via before/after screenshots demonstrating the fix.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[mergify]

Merge Queue Status

✅ The pull request has been merged at 3febc38

This pull request spent 4 seconds in the queue, with no time running CI.
The checks were run in-place.

Required conditions to merge

• #approved-reviews-by >= 1 [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
  • fix: USM text input not taking up full width #4435
• #changes-requested-reviews-by = 0 [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
  • fix: USM text input not taking up full width #4435
• #review-threads-unresolved = 0 [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
  • fix: USM text input not taking up full width #4435
• branch-protection-review-decision = APPROVED [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
  • fix: USM text input not taking up full width #4435
• any of [🛡 GitHub branch protection]:
  • check-success = Summary
  • check-neutral = Summary
  • check-skipped = Summary
• any of [🛡 GitHub branch protection]:
  • check-success = lint_test_build
  • check-neutral = lint_test_build
  • check-skipped = lint_test_build
• any of [🛡 GitHub branch protection]:
  • check-success = license/cla
  • check-neutral = license/cla
  • check-skipped = license/cla
• any of [🛡 GitHub branch protection]:
  • check-success = lint_pull_request
  • check-neutral = lint_pull_request
  • check-skipped = lint_pull_request