fix: ClientIdToTransportId fix when MULTIPLAYER_TOOLS_1_0_0_PRE_7 is defined

[NoelStephensUnity]

Purpose of this PR

When MULTIPLAYER_TOOLS_1_0_0_PRE_7 is defined there is code within UnityTransport that did not take the ClientIdToTransportId into consideration. This resolves that issue.

This PR also handles the deprecation of GetInstanceID and replaces all uses with GetEntityId when using newer versions of Unity 6.

Jira ticket

NA

Changelog

NA (issue landed in develop-2.0.0 but has not been released in a package)

Documentation

• No documentation changes or additions were necessary.

Testing & QA (How your changes can be verified during release Playtest)

Functional Testing

Manual testing :

• Manual testing done

Automated tests:

• [ X ] Covered by existing automated tests
  • Added multiplayer tools to testproject which should avoid missing this kind of issue in the future.
• Covered by new automated tests

Does the change require QA team to:

• Review automated tests?
• Execute manual tests?
• Provide feedback about the PR?

If any boxes above are checked the QA team will be automatically added as a PR reviewer.

Backports

No back port required.

[michalChrobot]

@NoelStephensUnity @EmandM I wonder if we should even consider such changes since

1. Multiplayer Tools package 1.X is not really supported anymore. All work and editor manifests are focused on 2.X version
2. All editors over 6000.0 (all editors supported by NGOv2.X) have at minimum tools v2.1.0

so I would argue for checking if anyone is using this define (not sure if we can do this) and potentially we can even remove it

[NoelStephensUnity]

@NoelStephensUnity @EmandM I wonder if we should even consider such changes since

1. Multiplayer Tools package 1.X is not really supported anymore. All work and editor manifests are focused on 2.X version
2. All editors over 6000.0 (all editors supported by NGOv2.X) have at minimum tools v2.1.0

so I would argue for checking if anyone is using this define (not sure if we can do this) and potentially we can even remove it

Yeah, the original PR did not back port... but I am on the same page. It most likely would be better to focus our time on v2.x things.