feat: global version category prefix query param [amo archlinux aur bower cdnjs chromewebstore cocoapods conan conda cookbook cpan cran crates ctan curseforge debian dockerVersion dub eclipsemarketplace elmpackage f-droid factorio fedora feedz flathub galaxytoolshed gem gitea]

[jNullj]

Altho i am aware of #6135 this is an attempt to make this manageable.
I dont mind if this ends up unused as i took this as an opportunity to play a bit with the codebase internals.

Let me know if you think this change is elegant and easy to maintain or more of an anchor might risks confusion in the codebase.

Introduce global category-specific query parameters and add versionPrefix support across version badges.

[github-actions]

	Warnings
⚠️	This PR modified service code for amo but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for archlinux but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for aur but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for bower but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for cdnjs but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for chrome-web-store but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for cocoapods but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for conan but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for conda but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for cookbook but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for cpan but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for cran but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for crates but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for ctan but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for curseforge but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for debian but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for docker but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for dub but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for eclipse-marketplace but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for elm-package but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for f-droid but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for factorio-mod-portal but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for fedora but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for feedz but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for flathub but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for galaxytoolshed but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for gem but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.
⚠️	This PR modified service code for gitea but not its test code. That's okay so long as it's refactoring existing code.

	Messages
📖	✨ Thanks for your contribution to Shields, @jNullj!

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 355586a

[chris48s]

I think I am against adding this as a user configuration option but I won't block it if other maintainers agree with adding it.

[PyvesB]

Thanks for taking a stab at this!

I'm also lukewarm about adding a new user-facing configuration option. It adds a tiny bit of complexity both in our codebase and in the number of choices the user is faced with when creating a new badge. It would also mean that the information shown by two badges belonging to the same service may be formatted slightly differently based on the personal preference of whoever put the badge on their README; whilst not the end of the world, this would effectively degrade horizontal consistency.

[jNullj]

I read your feedback and gave this another thought.
While i had fun with the idea, this does break horizontal consistency while also making the code a bit harder to maintain.
I also get how this, and using too many options can cause decision fatigue for UX.

You're the old hand here. If something feels off about this change, I trust your gut.

Thank you for taking the time about this.