refactor: remove embedded ipfs

[frrist]

• see WIP Extract the embedded IPFS node #3712 for prior art/an alternative approach.
• This PR is more of a "bulldozer" approach than WIP Extract the embedded IPFS node #3712. I am removing all references to IPFS as a storage provider and publish, along with any tests making assertions on that functionality. Many tests assume an IPFS client is available since that was always the case prior to removing the embedded IPFS node. And I suspect it will be far simpler to remove IPFS all together and then add it back in a follow on.
• we have a heap of tests that still use the "legacy" models and said tests are tightly coupled to IPFS. These are known as Scenario tests. I would like to remove these tests since they are using models (model) we plan to remove very soon as we move to the new API and models package. We can always add similar testing back in a follow on.

[coderabbitai]

Important

Auto Review Skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on this repository.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

---

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
  • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger a review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[wdbaruni]

I am sorry but I don't agree with the approach. You are removing almost all of our test scenarios, and pushing a commit with no support for IPFS users that can block our release pipeline until it is added back in. We still need to give notice to our users and inform them to spin up their own IPFS node instead of the embedded one

Instead of deleting the tests, the right approach is to migrate them to the new models as planned in #3832, and to local publisher instead of IPFS as planned in #3816. Now we can speed things and remove embedded ipfs from tests before 1.5 release, but we shouldn't do more intrusive things or fully remove embedded ipfs without communicating that early to users.

[frrist]

@wdbaruni agreed, which is why this remains in draft.

[wdbaruni]

agreed, which is why this remains in draft.

You've asked me to review this proposal and I did :)