♻️ ⏪ Revert changes for old queries

[greymistcube]

This should resolve the backwards compatibility issue with services already using the states query.
It needs to be phased out anyway, so might as well keep it. 🙄

P.S. From what I gather, LegacyBencodexValueType was implemented wrongly in the first place (serialization and parse mismatch, implicit base64 representation in playground, etc.). Hence, resulting in such an awkward way to force backwards compatibility in this PR. 😐

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 55 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Small
Size       : +37 -18
Percentile : 22%

Total files changed: 4

Change summary by file extension:
.md : +5 -0
.cs : +32 -18

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

• Fast and predictable releases to production:
  • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
    iterations.
  • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
• Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
  • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
  • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
• Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
  • Small portions can be assimilated better.
• Better engineering practices are exercised:
  • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
  • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

• Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
  • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
  • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
• Change your engineering behaviors
  • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
    • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
    • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

• One line was added: +1 -0
• One line was deleted: +0 -1
• One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
  interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
• Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
  of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

---

Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

[riemannulus]

Should we add issue or PR numbers about previous feature

[greymistcube]

How? I guess we can refer to #3560 maybe, but I don't think it'd help much. Also the whole point of this PR is to not fix the issue since we don't want to deal with the consequences of breaking the API. 😑

[riemannulus]

Does we haven't more good naming...? I guess if you have plan about more refactoring, maybe you need LegacyBencodexValueV2Type later. 🙄

[greymistcube]

Well, it's just more work then. To be more sensible and be managable, we need an entirely new set of "V2" scheme which doesn't share the root. Then we'd have to create an entirely new copies of query related codes, management of V1 and V2 graph types, etc. 🙄

[limebell]

LGTM