Fix backwards-incompatible protocol version bump

[lenaschoenburg]

Description

This splits the protocol based on usage and reverts the version bump in protocol.xml.

Related issues

closes #9949

Definition of Done

Not all items need to be done depending on the issue and the pull request.

Code changes:

• The changes are backwards compatibility with previous versions
• If it fixes a bug then PRs are created to backport the fix to the last two minor versions. You can trigger a backport by assigning labels (e.g. backport stable/1.3) to the PR, in case that fails you need to create backports manually.

Testing:

• There are unit/integration tests that verify all acceptance criterias of the issue
• New tests are written to ensure backwards compatibility with further versions
• The behavior is tested manually
• The change has been verified by a QA run
• The impact of the changes is verified by a benchmark

Documentation:

• The documentation is updated (e.g. BPMN reference, configuration, examples, get-started guides, etc.)
• New content is added to the release announcement
• If the PR changes how BPMN processes are validated (e.g. support new BPMN element) then the Camunda modeling team should be informed to adjust the BPMN linting.

Please refer to our review guidelines.

[github-actions]

Test Results

   800 files  ±    0         1 errors  799 suites  ±0   1h 44m 37s ⏱️ + 10m 3s
6 329 tests +285  6 320 ✔️ +285  9 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
6 515 runs  +285  6 506 ✔️ +285  9 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

For more details on these parsing errors, see this check.

Results for commit b757ceb. ± Comparison against base commit b3cff93.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[lenaschoenburg]

@deepthidevaki So @npepinpe and I talked about potential tests a bit more and came to the conclusion that we don't need them for now. The reason is a mixture of

1. This should work, decoding of ExporterPositions does not check the schema/template
2. Even if it doesn't, it isn't critical because it doesn't prevent a rolling upgrade.
3. Acceptance tests would be very hacky.

I'll create follow-up issues that will allow us to write acceptance tests in the future.

[npepinpe]

To clarify, I think they would be hacky now because you would need to observe that compaction did not occur (since the exporter position is not propagated), and at the moment you need knowledge of the file system layout to do that. Hopefully we have better monitoring tools in the future and we can write such tests :)

But Ole's main point stands, as this doesn't prevent rolling update (only possibly prevents compaction while an update is ongoing and also possibly generates error), this is probably not critical enough to warrant more effort 👍

[deepthidevaki]

Great! Thanks for doing this 👍

[lenaschoenburg]

bors r+

[zeebe-bors-camunda]

Build succeeded:

• Java checks
• Test summary
• Go linting