config cleanup

[DaanHoogland]

Description

This PR tries to get rid of the Config enum or the old mechanism to define configuration items, which is long overdue. The change should be transparent, but is huge so good regression testing is required. And merg early in the release cycle is recommended.
Commits are being done in batches for review convenience. They could have been done in separate PRs but in the end the changes are rather trivial.

Fixes: #10752

Types of changes

• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
• Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
• Build/CI
• Test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

• Major
• Minor

Bug Severity

• BLOCKER
• Critical
• Major
• Minor
• Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 3.41%. Comparing base (64178ea) to head (f7739ad).

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (64178ea) and HEAD (f7739ad). Click for more details.

HEAD has 1 upload less than BASE

Flag	BASE (64178ea)	HEAD (f7739ad)
unittests	1	0

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##               main   #13884       +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage     19.65%    3.41%   -16.25%     
=============================================
  Files          6368      487     -5881     
  Lines        574943    41867   -533076     
  Branches      70355     7912    -62443     
=============================================
- Hits         113015     1429   -111586     
+ Misses       449658    40238   -409420     
+ Partials      12270      200    -12070     

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	3.41% <ø> (ø)
unittests	?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[github-actions]

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: D — Marginal

Metric	Value
Line coverage	24.51%
Branch coverage	18.70%

Grade Scale

Grade	Line Coverage	Meaning
🟢 A	≥ 80%	Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B	60-79%	Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C	40-59%	Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D	20-39%	Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F	< 20%	Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
26.3% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 40%)
C Reliability Rating on New Code (required ≥ B)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

Catch issues before they fail your Quality Gate with our IDE extension SonarQube for IDE

[github-actions]

This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 18911