[NAE-1156] View Deprecation and All Data

[Kovy95]

Description

-remove deprecated view tag

Fixes NAE-1156

Dependencies

none

Third party dependencies

none

Blocking Pull requests

none

How Has Been This Tested?

manually

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• My changes have been checked, personally or remotely, with @machacjozef
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have resolved all conflicts with the target branch of the PR
• I have updated and synced my code with the target branch
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing tests pass locally with my changes:
  • Lint test
  • Unit tests
  • Integration tests
• I have checked my contribution with code analysis tools:
  • SonarCloud
  • Snyk
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation:
  • Developer documentation
  • User Guides
  • Migration Guides

[sonarcloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

100.0% Coverage
0.0% Duplication

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 219 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Large
Size       : +183 -36
Percentile : 61.9%

Total files changed: 13

Change summary by file extension:
.groovy : +65 -11
.java : +114 -25
.properties : +4 -0

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.

[sonarcloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
1 Code Smell

77.1% Coverage
0.0% Duplication