Removing profile versioning return value from commands about environment

[ATorrise]

What It Does
Part of the modernization effort in preparation for v3. Given v1 profiles will no longer be supported, their consideration in certain command logic is no longer necessary.

How to Test

1. Append your command with --show-inputs-only.
2. Test zowe config report-env.
   Ensure neither command returns anything related to differentiating your environment between TeamConfig of v1

Review Checklist
I certify that I have:

• tested my changes
• added/updated automated tests
• updated the changelog
• followed the contribution guidelines

Additional Comments
If there are any other commands the team can think of that return information about environment for user information that have special logic for v1, the removal of that logic could be appended to this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 40.00000% with 6 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 88.79%. Comparing base (3fcffd1) to head (ff4fbd4).

❗ Current head ff4fbd4 differs from pull request most recent head ae06f7f. Consider uploading reports for the commit ae06f7f to get more accurate results

Files	Patch %	Lines
...ackages/imperative/src/cmd/src/CommandProcessor.ts	40.00%	6 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                   Coverage Diff                   @@
##           rm-profile-handlers    #2053      +/-   ##
=======================================================
- Coverage                90.92%   88.79%   -2.13%     
=======================================================
  Files                      616      616              
  Lines                    17165    17153      -12     
  Branches                  3616     3551      -65     
=======================================================
- Hits                     15607    15231     -376     
- Misses                    1557     1921     +364     
  Partials                     1        1              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[zFernand0]

Smart to have based your branch off of the rm-profile-handlers branch 🥳
The only downside is that you may run into issues coming from that WIP branch 😋

Changes LGTM! 😋

just gotta address a few failing tests 😅

[gejohnston]

Thanks for going beyond just changing the text that is displayed. The removal of V1 logic in report-env is above and beyond the original issue, but a very worthwhile change.

I confirmed that your branch has the same bug fix as the original branch from which you created your branch. So you were right, your test errors are the result of some specific changes in your branch.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
100.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[t1m0thyj]

Looks pretty good, thanks @ATorrise! Left a few comments about how we handle secure inputs.

[zFernand0]

LGTM! 😋

[t1m0thyj]

Thanks for updating the secure values test to handle team config 👍 Left a few comments.

waiting for test to be added back 😋

[ATorrise]

@gejohnston Are these failing tests acceptable or should I do something about them?

[gejohnston]

Are these failing tests acceptable or should I do something about them?

@ATorrise I think that we should merge this branch into rm-profile-handlers. I think that the error will not exist in the rm-profile-handlers branch. Even if there is a problem, it will be easier to fix in that branch.

[t1m0thyj]

LGTM if we want to fix the tests in another branch after merge 🙂

Left a comment about why the test may be failing

[t1m0thyj]

I think we may need to remove this line now to fix the failing unit tests?