deprecate descriptor and change_descriptor fields

[110CodingP]

Description

These fields are planned to be replaced by keyring field when we have the multi-keychain wallet so need to be deprecated following the policy in #391 .

Changelog notice

• Deprecated network, descriptor and change_descriptor fields of wallet::ChangeSet .

Checklists

All Submissions:

• I've signed all my commits
• I followed the contribution guidelines
• I ran just p before pushing

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 79.77%. Comparing base (c422104) to head (bf9a904).
⚠️ Report is 12 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #394      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   79.17%   79.77%   +0.60%     
==========================================
  Files          24       24              
  Lines        5311     5266      -45     
  Branches      242      241       -1     
==========================================
- Hits         4205     4201       -4     
+ Misses       1029      988      -41     
  Partials       77       77              

Flag	Coverage Δ
rust	79.77% <100.00%> (+0.60%)	⬆️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[Serious-Sam-Dev]

all test have passed, clippy dont warning, approach ACK, the only thing i see need change is commit name, try use the conventional commits, see more in CONTRIBUTING, change to conventional commit to make more easy to review

[110CodingP]

all test have passed, clippy dont warning, approach ACK, the only thing i see need change is commit name, try use the conventional commits, see more in CONTRIBUTING, change to conventional commit to make more easy to review

I wasn't sure what type this commit should be classified as 😅 . Should it be docs or refactor?

[Serious-Sam-Dev]

hmmm... good question, i think docs is better than the refactor, refactor say more change code or remove, maybe (fix), (docs) our (chore) is valid, i believe change the commit name to any of this "tags" will give to PR, more relevance to a view of a maintainer

[ValuedMammal]

I guess we can't deprecate a field until we've provided an alternative, i.e. the keyring, which is currently planned for 4.0.

[110CodingP]

In that case, should I close this one?