Bug - Package Publishing - Published Libraries should follow NPM dual module package standards

PatternFly libraries should follow NPM standards for publishing dual module (CommonJS/ESModule) packages.

PatternFly packages have

  "main": "dist/js/index.js",
  "module": "dist/esm/index.js",
  "types": "dist/esm/index.d.ts",

This is a really early format when es modules were being initially developed and not supported by modern tooling.

NPM documentation links to this as the right way to handle dual module packages.

{
  "type": "module",
  "exports": {
    "import": "./index.mjs",
    "require": "./index.cjs"
  }
}

Modern tooling like vite builds libraries with a combination of both for compatibility.

{
  "name": "my-lib",
  "type": "module",
  "main": "./dist/my-lib.umd.cjs",
  "types": "./dist/my-lib.d.ts",
  "module": "./dist/my-lib.js",
  "exports": {
    ".": {
      "import": "./dist/my-lib.js",
      "require": "./dist/my-lib.umd.cjs"
    }
  }
}

This is currently blocking us from using vitest to test because it gets really confused. It tries to import the code as ESM but then is unhappy that the package is not marked as type "module". If we manually add type 'module', it then runs into some code that uses a 'require', which is not valid in the scope of a module.

PatternFly packages should support both ESM and CommonJS using NPM standards for better compatibility.

This affects all PF packages not just react-core.

Review the package metadata fields shown in the issue across all PatternFly packages, then reproduce the current module-resolution problem with vitest. Check the NPM package-examples and Vite library-mode references first; done means every affected package supports both ESM and CommonJS through standard package metadata.