SONARKT-659 Deprecate rule S6291 and S6300

[pierre-loup-tristant-sonarsource]

SONARKT-659

Review

A dedicated reviewer checked the rule description successfully for:

• logical errors and incorrect information
• information gaps and missing content
• text style and tone
• PR summary and labels follow the guidelines

[antonioaversa]

@pierre-loup-tristant-sonarsource Changed the title of the PR to align with this convention.

[antonioaversa]

Based on this process, we need to remove all tags and all quality profiles from the rule.
Regarding replacementRules: I don't think there is any rule that we may consider even a partial replacement, but I'll let you check.

[antonioaversa]

I also wonder whether we should keep the security standards, as they have an impact on security reports.
Do we still want for the rule to appear in those?

[pierre-loup-tristant-sonarsource]

Once we deprecated the rule it will impact the security report if it's manually added to a quality profile right?
If this is the case, I would keep the security profile mapping in case some user want to keep using the rule.

[antonioaversa]

See comments above

[antonioaversa]

@pierre-loup-tristant-sonarsource CI is failing, see here. I think you need to add back the tags, and leaves the list empty.

[sonarqube-next]

Quality Gate passed for 'rspec-tools'

Issues
0 New issues
0 Fixed issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0 Dependency risks
No data about Coverage
No data about Duplication

See analysis details on SonarQube

[sonarqube-next]

Quality Gate passed for 'rspec-frontend'

Issues
0 New issues
0 Fixed issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0 Dependency risks
No data about Coverage
No data about Duplication

See analysis details on SonarQube