Remove archive storage factory

[akagami-harsh]

Which problem is this PR solving?

• Simplify Storage: Remove ArchiveFactory, Use Storage.Factory

Description of the changes

• Fixes #5230

How was this change tested?

• some test are still failing working on fixing them

Checklist

• [x] I have read https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING_GUIDELINES.md
• [x] I have signed all commits
• [x] I have added unit tests for the new functionality
• [x] I have run lint and test steps successfully
  • for jaeger: make lint test
  • for jaeger-ui: yarn lint and yarn test

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 3 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 41.01%. Comparing base (727bf18) to head (3277039).

Files	Patch %	Lines
cmd/query/app/querysvc/query_service.go	0.00%	3 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5279       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   95.16%   41.01%   -54.15%     
===========================================
  Files         340      212      -128     
  Lines       16666    10981     -5685     
===========================================
- Hits        15860     4504    -11356     
- Misses        616     6073     +5457     
- Partials      190      404      +214     

Flag	Coverage Δ
badger	12.25% <ø> (ø)
cassandra-3.x	21.14% <ø> (ø)
cassandra-4.x	21.14% <ø> (ø)
elasticsearch-5.x	17.68% <ø> (-0.02%)	:arrow_down:
elasticsearch-6.x	17.70% <ø> (ø)
elasticsearch-7.x	17.76% <ø> (+0.01%)	:arrow_up:
elasticsearch-8.x	17.82% <ø> (-0.02%)	:arrow_down:
grpc	11.60% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	:arrow_down:
kafka	11.84% <ø> (ø)
opensearch-1.x	17.75% <ø> (-0.02%)	:arrow_down:
opensearch-2.x	17.75% <ø> (ø)
unittests	?

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

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[yurishkuro]

@akagami-harsh I see you fixing tests, but the direction itself doesn't seem right to me (https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger/pull/5279#discussion_r1528655325). Can you elaborate?

[akagami-harsh]

@akagami-harsh I see you fixing tests, but the direction itself doesn't seem right to me (#5279 (comment)). Can you elaborate?

@yurishkuro , i am trying do to what you explained in the comment. first i removed the storage.archiveFactory interface and then trying to find a way to pass in two separate factories in the query-service for primary and archive.

[yurishkuro]

I also said we should only do it in the scope of jaeger-v2, not do a major change in v1 storage

If at all possible we should try to avoid changing anything in v1 storage interface, because it's not necessary for v2.

[yurishkuro]

I think we can close this