This is allowed for existing instances so we don't end up 76 offenses
right away, but for new code one should _only_ use this if they _have_
to remove non database data. Even then it's usually better to do this in
a service class as this gives you more control over how to remove the
data (e.g. in bulk).

This removes the need for relying on Rails' "dependent" option for data
removal, which is _incredibly_ slow (even when using :delete_all) when
deleting large amounts of data. This also ensures data consistency is
enforced on DB level and not on application level (something Rails is
really bad at).

This commit also includes various migrations to add foreign keys to
tables that eventually point to "projects" to ensure no rows get
orphaned upon removing a project.

This is allowed for existing instances so we don't end up 76 offenses
right away, but for new code one should _only_ use this if they _have_
to remove non database data. Even then it's usually better to do this in
a service class as this gives you more control over how to remove the
data (e.g. in bulk).

This removes the need for relying on Rails' "dependent" option for data
removal, which is _incredibly_ slow (even when using :delete_all) when
deleting large amounts of data. This also ensures data consistency is
enforced on DB level and not on application level (something Rails is
really bad at).

This commit also includes various migrations to add foreign keys to
tables that eventually point to "projects" to ensure no rows get
orphaned upon removing a project.

This reverts commit 6d9acc49b29b9a735148198a15654728f7f2ba91.

Signed-off-by: Rémy Coutable <remy@rymai.me>

Signed-off-by: Rémy Coutable <remy@rymai.me>

[Multiple isssue assignees] feature is far behind of the master by this commit I resolve the BE part

Closes #31215