METRON-1867 Remove /api/v1/update/replace endpoint

[nickwallen]

The /api/v1/update/replace endpoint is no longer used. This is dead code and should be removed.

This is dependent on the following PRs.

• METRON-1834: Migrate Elasticsearch from TransportClient to new Java REST API #1242
• METRON-1845 Correct Test Data Load in Elasticsearch Integration Tests #1247
• METRON-1849 Elasticsearch Index Write Functionality Should be Shared #1254

Testing

1. Spin-up Full Dev.
2. Open the Alerts UI.
   • View alerts.
   • Escalate an alert.
   • Comment on an alert.
   • Create a meta-alert.
   • Escalate a meta-alert.
3. Run the UI e2e tests.

Pull Request Checklist

• Is there a JIRA ticket associated with this PR? If not one needs to be created at Metron Jira.
• Does your PR title start with METRON-XXXX where XXXX is the JIRA number you are trying to resolve? Pay particular attention to the hyphen "-" character.
• Has your PR been rebased against the latest commit within the target branch (typically master)?
• Have you included steps to reproduce the behavior or problem that is being changed or addressed?
• Have you included steps or a guide to how the change may be verified and tested manually?
• Have you ensured that the full suite of tests and checks have been executed in the root metron folder via:

  mvn -q clean integration-test install && dev-utilities/build-utils/verify_licenses.sh 
  

• Have you written or updated unit tests and or integration tests to verify your changes?
• If adding new dependencies to the code, are these dependencies licensed in a way that is compatible for inclusion under ASF 2.0?
• Have you verified the basic functionality of the build by building and running locally with Vagrant full-dev environment or the equivalent?

[mmiklavc]

The /api/v1/update/replace endpoint is no longer used. This is dead code and should be removed.

Why does this depend on 3 other PRs? Shouldn't this come first, or at least be independent of the others?

[nickwallen]

Why does this depend on 3 other PRs? Shouldn't this come first, or at least be independent of the others?

It was just easier to do it this way based on when I ran into the issue that necessitated this. If I go through the effort to rebase this on master and retest, what problem does that solve? Sorry, I just fail to see the problem, but maybe I am missing something here.

[nickwallen]

Closing. This is replaced by #1284 .