refactor: Rename all Query terminology to Request

[shahzadlone]

RELEVANT ISSUE(S)

Resolves #455

DESCRIPTION

Change the codebase Query terminology to use the word Request to address the top level Query Request and to use the word query to address the Read-only Operation to avoid confusion.

HOW HAS THIS BEEN TESTED?

Locally and CI.

CHECKLIST:

• I have commented the code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
• I have made sure that the PR title adheres to the conventional commit style (subset of the ones we use can be found under: tools/configs/chglog/config.yml

ENVIRONMENT / OS THIS WAS TESTED ON?

Please specify which of the following was this tested on (remove or add your own):

• Arch Linux

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #497 (f5f45af) into develop (45978e0) will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 63.77%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #497      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    65.09%   65.11%   +0.01%     
===========================================
  Files           87       88       +1     
  Lines        10242    10242              
===========================================
+ Hits          6667     6669       +2     
+ Misses        2927     2925       -2     
  Partials       648      648              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
api/http/handlerfuncs.go	0.81% <0.00%> (ø)
client/descriptions.go	76.66% <ø> (ø)
db/fetcher/dag.go	57.31% <ø> (ø)
db/fetcher/versioned.go	49.47% <ø> (ø)
request/graphql/parser/commit.go	59.61% <ø> (ø)
request/graphql/parser/filter.go	69.60% <0.00%> (ø)
request/graphql/parser/mutation.go	61.60% <ø> (ø)
request/graphql/parser/query.go	82.39% <ø> (ø)
request/graphql/planner/arbitrary_join.go	77.58% <ø> (ø)
request/graphql/planner/average.go	73.46% <ø> (ø)
... and 35 more

[AndrewSisley]

ah.... I didnt realize you'd end up moving the planner/parser packages.... How long did you spend on this? Is it quick to do? Am quite nervous about missing changes in develop in the doc restructure branch if you are moving these files (doc restructure is close to proper PR status now)

[shahzadlone]

ah.... I didnt realize you'd end up moving the planner/parser packages.... How long did you spend on this? Is it quick to do? Am quite nervous about missing changes in develop in the doc restructure branch if you are moving these files (doc restructure is close to proper PR status now)

This is why I mentioned in the last meeting that we will have notable conflicts with your stuff. Nothing to worry this is all fairly easy to patch on top of your work once it is in, it should be straight forward from my end as this didn't take too much time (most of the work was done with vim macros and tools).

Will say this definitely should happen after your stuff is in (or even later if there are any other major conflicting PR changes).

Additionally adding the Do not merge label.

[AndrewSisley]

This is why I mentioned in the last meeting that we will have notable conflicts with your stuff.

Ah sorry, I guess I'd either forgotten that or didn't realize the impact of you moving files (and thought it would just be simple/normal conflicts)

Will say this definitely should happen after your stuff is in (or even later if there are any other major conflicting PR changes).

Cheers! Will review properly after the standup then

[shahzadlone]

undo

[shahzadlone]

Closing for: #1054