zulip: Standardize the names of bindings with OperationIDs.

[MSurfer20]

No description provided.

[MSurfer20]

I have manually audited, and these are all the bindings whose names don't match the operationIDs as defined in zulip.yaml.

[timabbott]

Thanks for doing this audit @MSurfer20! I started https://chat.zulip.org/#narrow/stream/378-api-design/topic/python.20bindings.20function.20names/near/1255079 for discussion.

[timabbott]

This looks great; rebasing to get CI to run in case the new automated tests of the server implementation fail with the new deprecation warning logging output. I think we need to do one thing before merging:

• Update the example scripts in zulip/zulip/examples to use the new functions, and potentially rename several of the example scripts accordingly.
• Do git grep within this project to make sure that we don't have any calls to the now deprecated methods that need to be updated.

Once that happens, we can merge this and our TODO to finish this cleanup process will be:

• Do a new release, which could be 0.9.0. @eeshangarg FYI -- if @MSurfer20 can do the renames above this weekend, we could potentially do that release early next week to also fix zulip 0.8.1 release on PyPI is missing py.typed #732.
• Update zulip/zulip to use the new release.
• Do a timely update of the zulip/zulip API documentation to use the non-deprecated method names.
• File an issue with zulip-terminal to do the same update.

@MSurfer20 can you let @eeshangarg know when you expect to get to the examples/ work? If it'll be a while, then we might want to just do a 0.8.2 release to fix #732 without waiting for this.

[zulipbot]

Heads up @MSurfer20, we just merged some commits that conflict with the changes your made in this pull request! You can review this repository's recent commits to see where the conflicts occur. Please rebase your feature branch against the upstream/main branch and resolve your pull request's merge conflicts accordingly.