[COMMS-916] Pin the primary target version convention to the lowest version id

[akabiru]

https://community.openproject.org/wp/COMMS-916

Follows #24432

This is an attempt to tighten deduction of the deprecated version_id primary version from a plain target_versions.first- which is not a consistent read to min(target_versions.id) that returns the version with the lowest ID consistently.

[github-actions]

Warning

Flaky specs

• rspec ./modules/bim/spec/features/ifc_models/direct_ifc_upload_spec.rb[1:1:1:1:1]
• rspec ./modules/bim/spec/features/ifc_models/direct_ifc_upload_spec.rb[1:1:2:1:1]
• rspec ./spec/features/activities/work_package/activities_spec.rb[1:5:2:1]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #24486, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./modules/bim/spec/features/ifc_models/direct_ifc_upload_spec.rb[1:1:1:1:1]`
- `rspec ./modules/bim/spec/features/ifc_models/direct_ifc_upload_spec.rb[1:1:2:1:1]`
- `rspec ./spec/features/activities/work_package/activities_spec.rb[1:5:2:1]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #24486. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #24486 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @akabiru to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @akabiru, and request a review from @akabiru.
On every commit, set @akabiru as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.

[github-actions]

Warning

Flaky specs

• rspec ./spec/features/projects/lists/columns_spec.rb[1:2:1:1]
• rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:2]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #24486, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./spec/features/projects/lists/columns_spec.rb[1:2:1:1]`
- `rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:2]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #24486. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #24486 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @akabiru to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @akabiru, and request a review from @akabiru.
On every commit, set @akabiru as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.

[brunopagno]

I see the change in meaning here, using min instead of first. I have two thoughts:

1. Are we introducing mixed behaviour? As in, are there other places in the codebase that rely on target_versions.first which we didn't adjust?

I think this is low risk, because even if we are using different approach in different places, all of them should have only a single version associated and consistently return the correct values.

2. Introducing the concept of a "primary" target version can be misleading to whoever is maintaining this code in the future. Because we never defined it in documentation, and because essentially there is no such thing as a primary target version.

I think this is low risk as well. What we're calling primary here is more like a single value representation fallback of target versions, but less of a mouthful.

So all good to go from my side 🚢 🚢 🚢

[akabiru]

What we're calling primary here is more like a single value representation fallback of target versions, but less of a mouthful.

@brunopagno Indeed, "primary" is one word for it- definitely open to other better fitting options. I do think however, that's it warrants an identity as of it's been loosely inferred as the first target versions when the multiple versions feature is OFF.