Our patch was wrong, it caused guarded_getattr to always allow
attributes of not protected instances of old-style classes. While this
look like a severe security hole, I don't we are using any sensitive non
protected instances

Because cStringIO.StringIO("initial value") makes a read-only StringIO
using another type, this was not supported.

Document (from my guess of why we have this behavior) why we have such a
patch, also cover our expected behavior in a minimal test.

Keep refusing methods ending in __roles__, so that we can run original
AccessControl test suite, also because it seems safer and because
allowing or not to define methods ending in __roles__ should not affect
our cases.

make our type checker falseish, so that ZopeGuard security checks don't
short circuit this.

because we dynamically patch these modules, we run the original test
suites to make sure that our patches do not introduce a regression.

Also add missing tests for other collections members, now that we make
it another module.

tests for builtins: frozenset, set, sorted, reversed and enumerate
tests for modules: json, calendar

It did not allow iteration, probably since python 2.7.
We also need to allow objects implementing __reversed__ with a custom
type, I only found list.__reversed__

If a generator is passed to restricted environment, it should be allowed
to iterate on this generator

PortalPatch instances had no security definition, so they were not
supposed to be accessible from restricted environment.

Accessing attributes of CMFActivity messages was never supposed to be
allowed from restricted python.
Write this part with a mock instead.

Move `BusinessTemplate_getPythonSourceCodeMessageList` to `erp5_core`, so that coding style tests don't need to install `erp5_administration` and all its dependencies.

`erp5_core` is not the final place for this, because this is not required to for business template bootstrap, but this is temporary until we finish business template reorganisation.

This revealed several problems of wrong dependencies between business templates that we could not see before, when coding style was installing too many business templates such as `erp5_pdm`, `erp5_trade`, `erp5_simulation`, `erp5_project`.

See merge request !1089

ZODB Components: Interface Component: pylint was incorrectly emitting: `W: __init__ method from base class is not called`.

now BusinessTemplate_getPythonSourceCodeMessageList is in erp5_core

ZODB Components: Ignore low-level TypeProvider (TypesTool and SolverTool) classes in FS migration Dialog.

This is a script from erp5_core, but Inventory Module is a portal type
from erp5_trade.

Component is not a valid prefix for python components from
portal_components, it's the name of a resource class from erp5_pdm.
ComponentMixin is the valid prefix.

This scripts are used only in code mirror integration

This busines template has actions using forms from erp5_simulation, for
example Rule_view on Payment Simulation Rule

This portal type is defined in erp5_trade, and the allowed content type in
Delivery Builder is defined in erp5_trade, only the allowed content type we
defined in erp5_base, which is incorrect, because it makes erp5_trade
allow some non existing types in Order Builder.

Fix this by moving the allowed content type in erp5_trade.

- fix indentation
- make overloaded methods accept same arguments as on parent class
- use list comprehension instead of map()

PDM has some scripts, such as Consumption_asCellRange, it seems
consumption is a generic concept that should be in pdm, not in apparel.

erp5_pdm does not depend on erp5_trade, so it cannot use proxy fields
from erp5_trade

This business template uses proxy fields from erp5_trade

These scripts are used in coding style tests, but because it was in
erp5_administration, all coding style tests had to install
erp5_administration and all its dependencies. Which is against one idea
of the coding style test, which is supposed to check that business
templates declare their dependencies correctly, but if we install all
business templates that erp5_administration depends on, the test might
have false positives of missing dependencies.

Since 7b4a3d4c instead of subscribing after add code unsubscribed which is illogical. Revert back. Credit Kaz.

Tests passing : https://nexedi.erp5.net/test_result_module/20200327-660269E/view?ignore_layout:int=1

See merge request !1092

This is already defined in erp5_simulation, also Solver Type does not
exist in erp5_base

testUpgradeInstanceWithOldDataFs: New Unit Test to check upgrade of old instance to current ERP5 version.

After copying old instance ZODB and SQL from erp5-bin.git, this checks whether
instance can be successfully through upgrader. Introduced because of 140be41d.

Since 7b4a3d4c instead of subscribing after add code unsubscribed which is illogical. Revert back. Credit Kaz.

See merge request !1085

runUnitTest: Set `skip-ownership-checking true` as we already do for a normal instance through zope.conf.

Related to 58c9f7c3c688854958592590dd396929b5a0c8d4 in slapos.git.

In nexedi/erp5@935b39f9 we accidentally enabled coding style test for `erp5_project`. Let's fix the current problems reported by coding style test.

See merge request !1087

See merge request !1079