Remove deprecated Steps from Apps feature

[misscoded]

Summary

Remove deprecated Steps from Apps feature, including related types, tests, and documentation.

Requirements (place an x in each [ ])

• [x] I've read and understood the Contributing Guidelines and have done my best effort to follow them.
• [x] I've read and agree to the Code of Conduct.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

:white_check_mark: All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. :white_check_mark: Project coverage is 93.09%. Comparing base (9204d43) to head (518cbfe). :warning: Report is 11 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2688      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.40%   93.09%   -0.32%     
==========================================
  Files          37       35       -2     
  Lines        7613     7080     -533     
  Branches      668      634      -34     
==========================================
- Hits         7111     6591     -520     
+ Misses        497      484      -13     
  Partials        5        5              

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

:rocket: New features to boost your workflow:

• :snowflake: Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• :package: JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[misscoded]

@mwbrooks @haleychaas There are legacy docs that exist for this feature at docs/english/legacy/steps-from-apps.md and docs/japanese/legacy/steps-from-apps.md that I'm unsure whether to remove or not.

[mwbrooks]

@mwbrooks @haleychaas There are legacy docs that exist for this feature at docs/english/legacy/steps-from-apps.md and docs/japanese/legacy/steps-from-apps.md that I'm unsure whether to remove or not.

Definitely @haleychaas call on how they want to handle the deprecation of docs 🤔

[haleychaas]

@misscoded Is there a way someone could still use it with an old version of Bolt? If so, I'd say we keep the docs and label them as legacy, but if not....I'm tempted to delete.

[misscoded]

@haleychaas Technically, no. Even if they were using it in an old version of Bolt, it wouldn't work, as the feature has been shut off. They'd get a deprecation warning and/or errors, and not be able to even see the feature, AFAIK.

Usually I'd say we should keep it for posterity, but it gets dicey because SFA and the new version of steps are so similar – meaning it's possible that someone could happen upon this old stuff and think it's referring to the new stuff. A problem we shouldn't have, but one that we do, unfortunately. 🫠

So, I can see both arguments. If we want to remove it, just let me know - I leave that decision ultimately to the docs folks!

[haleychaas]

@misscoded I say we delete it then! 🪓