!refactor(backend): remove legacy user endpoints

[matmair]

removes fallback from #11963 in the next breaking

[matmair]

follow up to #9604

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 81.51%. Comparing base (8849ff8) to head (46fe8e6).

❌ Your project check has failed because the head coverage (81.09%) is below the target coverage (90.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                Coverage Diff                @@
##           next-breaking   #11985      +/-   ##
=================================================
- Coverage          82.29%   81.51%   -0.79%     
=================================================
  Files               1313     1313              
  Lines              68823    69627     +804     
  Branches            1938     1938              
=================================================
+ Hits               56640    56758     +118     
- Misses             11701    12387     +686     
  Partials             482      482              

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	90.29% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️

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

Components	Coverage Δ
Backend Apps	81.09% <ø> (-1.18%)	⬇️
Backend General	93.35% <ø> (ø)
Frontend	70.82% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 53.87%

⚠️ Different runtime environments detected

Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

⚡ 3 improved benchmarks
❌ 39 regressed benchmarks
🆕 2 new benchmarks
⏩ 2 skipped benchmarks¹

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	WallTime	test_api_auth_performance	660.6 ms	1,638.6 ms	-59.68%
⚡	WallTime	test_api_options_performance[/api/build/line/]	402.3 ms	192.4 ms	×2.1
❌	WallTime	test_api_list_performance[/api/part/]	76 ms	198.6 ms	-61.76%
🆕	WallTime	test_api_list_performance[/api/user/me/roles/]	N/A	30 ms	N/A
❌	WallTime	test_search_performance[stockitem]	110 ms	145.9 ms	-24.61%
❌	WallTime	test_api_options_performance[/api/company/]	21 ms	63.4 ms	-66.88%
❌	WallTime	test_api_options_performance[/api/build/]	57.3 ms	152 ms	-62.31%
⚡	WallTime	test_api_options_performance[/api/build/item/]	331.9 ms	174.5 ms	+90.2%
❌	WallTime	test_api_list_performance[/api/part/category/]	16.5 ms	47.8 ms	-65.49%
❌	WallTime	test_api_options_performance[/api/order/so/]	53.7 ms	154.6 ms	-65.26%
❌	WallTime	test_api_list_performance[/api/stock/]	163.9 ms	247.4 ms	-33.78%
❌	WallTime	test_api_options_performance[/api/order/so/shipment/]	52.9 ms	157.5 ms	-66.39%
❌	WallTime	test_search_performance[supplier]	14.6 ms	36.1 ms	-59.71%
❌	WallTime	test_api_options_performance[/api/order/po/]	47.1 ms	135.1 ms	-65.16%
❌	WallTime	test_api_list_performance[/api/company/]	18.3 ms	46.2 ms	-60.28%
❌	WallTime	test_api_options_performance[/api/order/po-line/]	158.7 ms	224.5 ms	-29.34%
❌	WallTime	test_search_performance[customer]	14.4 ms	36 ms	-59.99%
❌	WallTime	test_search_performance[purchaseorder]	24.4 ms	61.6 ms	-60.36%
❌	WallTime	test_api_list_performance[/api/build/]	43.6 ms	99.1 ms	-55.98%
🆕	WallTime	test_api_options_performance[/api/user/me/roles/]	N/A	20 ms	N/A
...	...	...	...	...	...

ℹ️ Only the first 20 benchmarks are displayed. Go to the app to view all benchmarks.

Tip

Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing matmair:backport/next-breaking/pr-11963 (46fe8e6) with next-breaking (f631eeb)²}

Footnotes

1. 2 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

2. No successful run was found on next-breaking (8849ff8) during the generation of this report, so f631eeb was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[matmair]

@SchrodingersGat ready for merge