This uses much less memory

basically, rewrite :
self.assertEqual(result_of_complex_method, result_of_another_complex_method)
into:
self.assertEqual(expected_value, result_of_another_complex_method)

This allow to get localstorage compatibility with binary files.

erp5_accounting: Improve code to only consider the line that has source and destination section equal the transaction in context

This reverts commit 985b8a77 as unit tests dependencies is now fixed

[erp5_web] Partial revert "Allow to configure ERP5 frontpage gadget, hateoas URL and application title."

This reverts commit e4bfb062.

Those files were commited by mistake.

This reverts commit d0d7fac6.

This reverts

    4f3bb0c9    (Revert "BigFile: Fixes, Tests and on-server Append support")

and thus continues the story of

    193f5cdd    (BigFile: Fixes, Tests and on-server Append support)

and essentially restores the result of that merge.

Initial idea was to give people time to better see how to handle code
submisstion, but in the end Romain approved it as is.

Reference: https://lab.nexedi.cn/nexedi/erp5/merge_requests/5 (= merge request !5)

The configuration is done on the WebSite level.
No custom JS code is needed.

This reverts commit 193f5cdd, reversing
changes made to 4ee61a23.

Jean-Paul suggested we first better further review our code review / merging
procedures and use e.g. this particular merge request as a basis for that.

Thus I'm reverting this merge, so people could study and re-merge it
"properly".

~~~~

Please note: I could potentially rewrite master history so that there
would be a no merge commit at all, as e.g. my branch was not so far ever
merged at all. In contrast to draft branches, that is however a not good
practice to rebase, and thus rewrite, master history - what has been
committed is committed and we only continue.

So later to re-merge my branch, if it will not be changed, we'll need to
first revert this revert (see [1] for rationale), or alternatively I
could re-prepare my patches with different sha1 ids and they will merge
again the "usual way".

[1] http://git-scm.com/docs/howto/revert-a-faulty-merge.html

The configuration is done on the Web Site level, to reduce the need to write custom JS code.

Ensure that the data format returned is stable.
By default, imit the number of documents returned by the search.
Do not return document properties outside the form rendering.
Minor bug fixes.

For my current project I needed to rework BigFile interface to support on-server data
appension. But while doing so I've discovered in many places current BigFile code
could crash and is not working properly. Thus this patch series contain:

    1) fixes for discovered bugs;
    2) support for on-server data append via exposing ._dataAppend(data_chunk) method;
    3) basic tests for BigFile (so that we know fixes are proper and we won't regress on
       the same things in the future).

Newly introduced BigFile tests were verified to pass on the testrunner:

https://nexedi.erp5.net/test_result_module/20150303-3789A033
https://nexedi.erp5.net/test_result_module/20150303-3789A033/7

NOTE running the whole testsuite failed because of:

  - erp5_test_result:testTaskDistribution failure https://nexedi.erp5.net/test_result_module/20150303-3789A033/23 .

testTaskDistribution is currently failing from time-to-time even on ERP5-MASTER
tests, e.g. here https://nexedi.erp5.net/test_result_module/20150226-1F4459D0,
so from my point of view that should not be related to BigFile at all.

Origin: http://lab.nexedi.cn/kirr/erp5 y/bigfile-fixes+append-v2
Reviewed-on: https://lab.nexedi.cn/nexedi/erp5/merge_requests/3   (= merge request !3)

~~~~~~~~

* 'y/bigfile-fixes+append-v2' of http://lab.nexedi.cn/kirr/erp5:
  BigFile: Basic tests
  bt5/erp5_big_file: Regenerate
  BigFile: Fix most errors reported by pyflakes
  BigFile: Factor out code to append data chunk to ._appendData()
  BigFile: .data can be  BTreeData or None or (possibly non-empty) str
  BigFile: Factor out "get .data mtime" into helper
  BigFile: No need to explicitly convert btree=None -> BTreeData() in PUT

before, the code was going through an error when no date was found for
doing stock optimisation. But we do date is found, this only means that
the stock is not going below the expected value, so we do not need to do
any optimisation

so that we can customise the color easily.

because we have no such generic property and this field can cause TypeError when saving.

next steps will be to change it to an erp5 renderjs gadget