Change aliasing method names in mapper and deprecate the old

[ml-evs]

Closes #667.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #746 (db0231d) into master (6152573) will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 95.83%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #746      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.77%   92.79%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          68       68              
  Lines        3655     3663       +8     
==========================================
+ Hits         3391     3399       +8     
  Misses        264      264              

Flag	Coverage Δ
project	92.79% <95.83%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
validator	92.79% <95.83%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
optimade/filtertransformers/mongo.py	97.57% <80.00%> (ø)
optimade/server/entry_collections/elasticsearch.py	97.91% <100.00%> (ø)
...made/server/entry_collections/entry_collections.py	97.41% <100.00%> (ø)
optimade/server/mappers/entries.py	98.52% <100.00%> (+0.19%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6152573...db0231d. Read the comment docs.

[ml-evs]

I removed this line from the "new" method as it is not tested anywhere and therefore should not be relied on for anything; I think it may just be left over from when alias_for was modified to make this method. If you ask for the OPTIMADE field of e.g. my_weird_field.with_dots, you would want it to return my_weird_field.with_dots rather than alias_for_my_weird_field even if the dot has some significance for that particular backend.

[ml-evs]

Is this what you had in mind @CasperWA?

[CasperWA]

I checked the doc string warnings with mkdocs serve and it didn't show correctly. I think the additional explamation point should do it?

Added a sentence about the dot-splitting of get_backend_field() as well, feel free to adapt it as you see fit.

[CasperWA]

After some testing locally, this seems to fix the admonition in the documentation (edited the previous suggested changes to match).

[ml-evs]

Thanks @CasperWA; I've just noticed that our CI doesn't do a proper rebuild of the docs for pull requests. We should probably fix this, as the elasticsearch docs aren't currently being tested. I'll raise an issue

[CasperWA]

Cheers @ml-evs