fix: remove support for NoOptDefaultValue

[JeancarloBarrios]

Description

Removes NoOptDefault Value flag from autcocli due to a bug in pflag.
Closes: #XXXX

---

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

• included the correct type prefix in the PR title
• added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• followed the guidelines for building modules
• included the necessary unit and integration tests
• added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
• included comments for documenting Go code
• updated the relevant documentation or specification
• reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
• confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

• confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
• confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
• reviewed state machine logic
• reviewed API design and naming
• reviewed documentation is accurate
• reviewed tests and test coverage
• manually tested (if applicable)

[julienrbrt]

This is what had to be backported to v0.47 right?

[JeancarloBarrios]

This is what had to be backported to v0.47 right?

Yes ! Sorry forgot to tag

[julienrbrt]

Actually, as we are deleting a field, maybe we should decrease the identifier of the others too, given it has not been yet released. cc @JeancarloBarrios

[JeancarloBarrios]

True I missed that thanks !!

[aaronc]

I would suggest we don't do this actually... so the issue is that this is part of the api module not 0.47 at all. So backporting doesn't really do anything. The thing that we need to do is tag api and then backport the required API module version to 0.47. Removing the field is one thing, but changing the numbers really would break any case that someone built their binary with an earlier version of api. This is maybe the first case in the wild where the issues raised in ADR 046 can be observed. Let's discuss a tagging/versioning strategy next week.

[julienrbrt]

This makes sense! Didn't notice the generated proto was pulsar.
One small unrelated issue is that now API possibly not support v0.47 entirely given CometBFT (#14899)