[ibexa/rector] Backported Ibexa Rector recipe to 4.6

[alongosz]

🎫 Issue	n/a

Related PRs:

• Backported Rector Set for Ibexa 4.6 rector#30

Description:

This PR backports 5.0 configuration to 4.6. 4.6 branch is already available for ibexa/rector package.
Ibexa 5.0 set contains deprecations that should be removed in 4.6 anyway.

There might be some minor differences (like we deprecated something in 5.0 only). We could approach that in several ways:

• Keep different contents of 5.0 set list between 4.6 and 5.0 branches in ibexa/rector package,
• Keep a copy of the 5.0 set as the 4.6 set with changes, ✔️ chosen solution
• Ensure all 5.0 rules are executable on 4.6.

Update Jan 28: after today's dry run for the presentation the conclusion was that having IBEXA_46 set would look less confusing in case of 4.6.

Update Mar 12: changed PR to use IbexaSetList::IBEXA_46 set for 4.6.

[github-actions]

Thanks for contribution! 🎉

To test the changes please execute:

composer config extra.symfony.endpoint https://api.github.com/repos/ibexa/recipes-dev/contents/index.json?ref=flex/pull-152

before executing the recipes.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[adamwojs]

Edit: after today's dry run for the presentation the conclusion was that having IBEXA_46 set would look less confusing in case of 4.6.

Yes, please introduce dedicated set for 4.6. After the 5.0 release set will start differ from 4.6.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[alongosz]

Edit: after today's dry run for the presentation the conclusion was that having IBEXA_46 set would look less confusing in case of 4.6.

Yes, please introduce dedicated set for 4.6. After the 5.0 release set will start differ from 4.6.

Changed accordingly, requesting 2nd round of review as the solution changed.