dev/core#183 Remove references to and noisly deprecated CRM_Core_DAO::createTempTableName

[seamuslee001]

Overview

This removes the last references to CRM_Core_DAO::createTempTableName and also adds in some noisy deprecation

Before

Deprecated function used and not noisley deprecated

After

Deprecated function not used and noisely deprecated

This includes #15792

ping @eileenmcnaughton @totten @monishdeb

[civibot]

(Standard links)

• If this is your first pull-request for CiviCRM, please browse CONTRIBUTING.md for information about the development and testing processes.
• If you are reviewing this pull-request, you may wish to consult the test sites and the Review Standards (long template, short template).

[totten]

BG: createTempTableName($prefix) and tempTable->category are not interchangeable. The former yields a table name like civicrm_rel_temp_1234 while the latter would look like civicrm_tmp_e_civicrm_rel_1234. The category has tighter validation.

Comment: When I manually run TempTable::build() like this in cv, it throws an exception b/c the category has _. Assuming that this change is safe (e.g. there's no other code that relies on the /^civicrm_rel_/ prefix), then you could just do rel or drop the category completely.

[seamuslee001]

Test failures relate here

CRM_Contact_BAO_QueryTest.testReciprocalRelationshipTargetGroupIsCorrectResults
CRM_Contact_BAO_QueryTest.testReciprocalRelationshipTargetGroupUsesTempTable

[eileenmcnaughton]

@seamuslee001 just to build on @totten's note about the categories - it's more helpful when a category is NOT used -because then any tables like civicrm_tmp* can be excluded from replication. We miss that main benefit when using a category - although there are likely cases where it makes sense to do I'm not sure what they are. In general no category is better than category

[seamuslee001]

@eileenmcnaughton category should not stop that because the category is added as the 3rd param so the table name would be civicrm_tmp_{e|d}_{category}_{rand}

[seamuslee001]

ok @eileenmcnaughton @totten removed the category and also neatened up some of the test changes, i think this is good now, The test failures have demonstrated we do have unit test coverage of the relationship change

[eileenmcnaughton]

Code seems logical & if this didn't work I would expect that relationship search would fatal - which it didn't....

[jitendrapurohit]

Reciprocal relationship search with custom fields leads to an error on Advanced search after this change. Have raised a PR for the fix at #17132