Abilities Explorer: Remove cb column.

[juanfra]

What?

Removes the unused "cb" (checkbox) column from the Abilities Explorer table and deprecates the related method.

Why?

The "cb" column is intended for bulk actions, which we don't have in the Abilities Explorer. Having it there is confusing and clutters the UI.

How?

Removed the "cb" column from the table display and deprecated the public method that handled it (to avoid breaking changes if extended elsewhere).

Testing Instructions

1. Visit the "Abilities explorer".
2. Confirm the checkbox column is not there.

Screenshots or screencast

Before	After

[github-actions]

The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs. You can also manually ask me to refresh this list by adding the props-bot label.

If you're merging code through a pull request on GitHub, copy and paste the following into the bottom of the merge commit message.

Co-authored-by: juanfra <juanfra@git.wordpress.org>
Co-authored-by: dkotter <dkotter@git.wordpress.org>
Co-authored-by: jeffpaul <jeffpaul@git.wordpress.org>

To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 55.75%. Comparing base (77819fb) to head (f14c507).
⚠️ Report is 15 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             develop     #246      +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage      55.84%   55.75%   -0.09%     
+ Complexity       508      507       -1     
=============================================
  Files             32       32              
  Lines           2611     2606       -5     
=============================================
- Hits            1458     1453       -5     
  Misses          1153     1153              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit	55.75% <ø> (-0.09%)	⬇️

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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[jeffpaul]

Yeah, I suppose that was there with the assumption there was some sort of bulk actions which are not present so fine by me to remove as long as @dkotter is happy with the technical changes here to proceed on approve/merge

[dkotter]

Do we need to deprecate this? I understand that's the typical best approach but in this case:

1. Seems unlikely anyone is overriding this
2. But if they are, this method exists on the WP_List_Table class we're extending so if we remove this method entirely (instead of deprecating) anyone extending this won't run into problems (I don't think)

[juanfra]

Thanks for the review!

1. Seems unlikely anyone is overriding this
2. But if they are, this method exists on the WP_List_Table class we're extending so if we remove this method entirely (instead of deprecating) anyone extending this won't run into problems (I don't think).

Fair point, I went this route because it's a public method, and even though the chance of someone overriding it is pretty minimal, seemed appropriate to be a bit defensive.

Totally fine with removing it completely though :)