    [Proposal] Breaking change `zero-shot-object-detection` for improved     consistency.
# What does this PR do?


This is a proposal to modify the output of `zero-shot-object-detection`
to provide better alignment with other pipelines.

The output is now strictly the same as `object-detection` whereas before
it would output lists of lists.

The name `candidate_labels` is used throughout for consistency with
other `zero-shot` pipelines.

The pipeline is changed to `ChunkPipeline` to support batching cleanly.

This removes all the lists and list of lists shenanigans, it's now a
matter of the base pipeline handling all this not this specific one.

### **Breaking change**
It did remove complex calls potentials `pipe(images = [image1, image2],
text_queries=[candidates1, candidates2])` to support only
`pipe([{"image": image1, "candidate_labels": candidates1}, {"image": image2, "candidate_labels": candidates2}])`
when dealing with lists and/or datasets.
We could keep them, but it will add a lot of complexity to the code
base, since the pipeline is rather young, I'd rather break to keep the
code simpler, but we can revert this.

### **Breaking change**
The name of the argument is now `image` instead of
`images` since it expects by default only 1 image. This is revertable
like the previous one.

### **Breaking change**
The types is now simplified and flattened:
`pipe(inputs) == [{**object1}, {**object2}]`
instead of the previous
`pipe(inputs) == [[{**object1}, {**object1}], [{**object2}]]`
Where the different instances would be grouped by candidate labels
within lists.
IMHO this is not really desirable, since it would output empty lists and
is only adding superflous indirection compared to
`object-detection`.

It is relatively change free, meaning the results are the same for large models.
It does change computation however since now the batching is handled by the pipeline
itself. It **did** change the results for the small models so there
seems to be a real difference in how the models handles this. Since it didn't affect any of the large tests I think it's acceptable.



## Before submitting
- [ ] This PR fixes a typo or improves the docs (you can dismiss the other checks if that's the case).
- [ ] Did you read the [contributor guideline](https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#start-contributing-pull-requests),
      Pull Request section?
- [ ] Was this discussed/approved via a Github issue or the [forum](https://discuss.huggingface.co/)? Please add a link
      to it if that's the case.
- [ ] Did you make sure to update the documentation with your changes? Here are the
      [documentation guidelines](https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/tree/main/docs), and
      [here are tips on formatting docstrings](https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/tree/main/docs#writing-source-documentation).
- [ ] Did you write any new necessary tests?


## Who can review?

Anyone in the community is free to review the PR once the tests have passed. Feel free to tag
members/contributors who may be interested in your PR.

<!-- Your PR will be replied to more quickly if you can figure out the right person to tag with @

 If you know how to use git blame, that is the easiest way, otherwise, here is a rough guide of **who to tag**.
 Please tag fewer than 3 people.

Models:

- albert, bert, xlm: @LysandreJik
- blenderbot, bart, marian, pegasus, encoderdecoder,  t5: @patrickvonplaten, @patil-suraj
- longformer, reformer, transfoxl, xlnet: @patrickvonplaten
- fsmt: @stas00
- funnel: @sgugger
- gpt2: @patrickvonplaten, @LysandreJik
- rag: @patrickvonplaten, @lhoestq
- tensorflow: @LysandreJik

Library:

- benchmarks: @patrickvonplaten
- deepspeed: @stas00
- ray/raytune: @richardliaw, @amogkam
- text generation: @patrickvonplaten
- tokenizers: @n1t0, @LysandreJik
- trainer: @sgugger
- pipelines: @LysandreJik

Documentation: @sgugger

HF projects:

- datasets: [different repo](https://github.com/huggingface/datasets)
- rust tokenizers: [different repo](https://github.com/huggingface/tokenizers)

Examples:

- maintained examples (not research project or legacy): @sgugger, @patil-suraj
- research_projects/bert-loses-patience: @JetRunner
- research_projects/distillation: @VictorSanh

 -->
@sahamrit Happy to hear your thoughts on this since you are the original implementor.

I'm proposing many breaking changes here which mostly are due to me being not enforcing them enough during the PR (well I think it was better to get the pipeline out sooner with some flaws rather than too late).
Since I started rewriting some docs I found the inconsistencies quite harmful in how to describe pipelines to users imo.<|||||>_The documentation is not available anymore as the PR was closed or merged._<|||||>I will wait a few days to give @sahamrit a chance to give his opinion before merging.