Simplify Onboarding Progress Workers around one implementation

• @dstull started a discussion: (+1 comment)

  note (non-blocking):

  For follow-up.

  There are a lot of workers in app/workers/onboarding that are action specific workers that I believe would be removed/replaced with Onboarding::ProgressWorker.perform_async calls.

  • these include:
    • app/workers/onboarding/issue_created_worker.rb
    • app/workers/onboarding/pipeline_created_worker.rb
    • app/workers/onboarding/user_added_worker.rb

Plan

• Change the calls to the above workers as calls to app/workers/onboarding/progress_worker.rb instead. Watch for unintended behavior changes.
  • See Move Onboarding Progress construct/updating to ... (#456534 - closed) and consider moving the invocations to ee at the same time as we'll need to do that eventually via that issue.
• Create a follow-up to handle fully removing the unused workers using this guide
  • In Final refactor/cleanup of onboarding progress a... (#472664 - closed)

full follow up items that are solved by other issues

The following discussions from !149617 (merged) should be addressed:

• @dstull started a discussion: (+2 comments)

  note (non-blocking):

  We should likely follow-up here and think about what code_added means and how we might want to detect it.

  • #457801 (closed)

• @dstull started a discussion:

  note (non-blocking):

  Follow-up here to determine if we can remove this fully and migrate data if needed.

  • #456533 (closed)

• @dstull started a discussion:

  note (non-blocking):

  The fact that we refer to create a repository as git_write is not great.

  We should, as a follow-up, discuss the idea of renaming this column in onboarding_progresses table to repository_created_at or similar.

  • covered by #456533 (closed)

• @acroitor started a discussion: (+1 comment)

  Is it possible to have a repository without a project ? 🤔

  • #457805 (closed)