because Domain.getRelativeUrl (and Category.getRelativeUrl) cannot be
restrictedTraverse'd

Workaround for bug #20160120-1805D22

The real motivation was to make sure that search match is displayed when searching with Ctrl+F / Ctrl+G

Conflicts:
	bt5/erp5_code_mirror/SkinTemplateItem/portal_skins/erp5_code_mirror/code_mirror_support.xml

codemirror: display an animation in window title so that the window flash when component has been saved.

Use case: save component on one tab, go to "run live test" tab and wait for component to be saved to make sure code runs with latest version

Conflicts:
	bt5/erp5_code_mirror/SkinTemplateItem/portal_skins/erp5_code_mirror/code_mirror_support.xml

This is probably incorrect. I believe ERP5ShortMessage's message_type
handling has to be refactored. I guess this should not be part of the
send API but be a property set on the gateway instance in portal_sms

Only mobyt support this parameter, so this break the compatibility with
essendex

erp5_travel_expense: Add transactions view on Expense Validation, Fix/Update  transaction generation

erp5_travel_expense: avoid undefined value

erp5_travel_expense: link related to Travel Request instead of record

erp5_travel_expense: can use listbox to search related mission in expense record

This was only used by listbox.
As most fields now render themself as 'p' tag in non editable mode, they are compatible with non editable listboxes to be rendered inside an 'a' tag.

Flush activities before we remove the permission to view document

In preference fields, do not fallback to displaying the globally preferred value when it's not defined on that preference

Some preferences fields have a TALES for `default` that displays the preferred value if the value if not defined locally, something like `python: context.getPreferredX() or preferences.getPreferredX()` .

I believe it is a bad idea, we should just display the value defined on the document like on every other fields.

Git log tells that over their lifetime, these fields have been changed by @tc @jm @kazuhiko @romain @yusei @aurel  so please tell me if there was a valid reason for using this pattern that I misunderstood.


/reviewed-on nexedi/erp5!217

Only display the value defined on the current preference, not need to
display the preferred value if not thing is defined on the current
preference.