LinkAhead rename lvl 0

Summary

LinkAhead Rename; First step with no action required for users.

Focus

Due to the renaming the 'Changes' tab in this MRis basically useless. Please have a look at the changes in !113 (closed) instead. The branch of this MR is created from the other one by renaming the module and by creating a thin wrapper with the old name.

The main changes are:

• renaming in docs
• renamed CaosDBException; deprecated old version exists; catching CaosDBException also catches the new one
• renamed CaosDBConnectionError; deprecated old version exists; catching CaosDBException also catches the new one
• old ini paths are deprecated, but still work. The new inis however take precedence over old ones
• caosdb_admin->linkahead_admin ; both can be used now.
• changed imports to relative or to linkahead

Test Environment

• check that the exception test properly and sufficiently tests that the exceptions are properly deprecated
• this pipeline
• test manually that you can use both admins scipts and that they are both in the path. The old one creates a warning.
• manually test the deprecation of the old ini file names and make sure that the content is still considered
• integration test [dev] against this branch: caosdb-pyinttest!66 (and check that we did test against the correct pylib version)
• check that there are no unexpected changes necessary in caosdb-pyinttest!66

Merge Procedure

• review changes in !113 (closed)
• make sure above named tests pass
• merge !112 (merged)
• delete !113 (closed)

Check List for the Author

Please, prepare your MR for a review. Be sure to write a summary and a focus and create gitlab comments for the reviewer. They should guide the reviewer through the changes, explain your changes and also point out open questions. For further good practices have a look at our review guidelines

• All automated tests pass
• Reference related issues
• Up-to-date CHANGELOG.md (or not necessary)
• Up-to-date JSON schema (or not necessary)
• Appropriate user and developer documentation (or not necessary)
  • How do I use the software? Assume "stupid" users.
  • How do I develop or debug the software? Assume novice developers.
• Annotations in code (Gitlab comments)
  • Intent of new code
  • Problems with old code
  • Why this implementation?

Check List for the Reviewer

• I understand the intent of this MR
• All automated tests pass
• Up-to-date CHANGELOG.md (or not necessary)
• Appropriate user and developer documentation (or not necessary)
• The test environment setup works and the intended behavior is reproducible in the test environment
• In-code documentation and comments are up-to-date.
• Check: Are there specifications? Are they satisfied?

For further good practices have a look at our review guidelines.